The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
LX.3: \ 107~ Municipal Public Employee Associations BULLETIN 1702 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR B u rea u of L a b o r S tatistics Dayton & Montgomery C & Public Library S E P 151971 DOCUMENT COLLECTION Municipal Public Employee Associations _ BULLETIN 1702 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR J. D. Hodgson, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner 1971 F or sale by th e S u p erin te n d en t of D ocum ents, U.S. G overnm ent P rin tin g Office W ashington, D.C. 20402 - Price 50 cents Stock N um ber 2901-0675 Preface This bulletin is one of a series of studies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics dealing with public employee collective bargaining and labor relations. The study was carried out, in part, with funds made available by the Labor-Management Services Administration of the Department of Labor. The Bureau made this study because little is known about municipal public employee associations, and because they have become a factor in city labor relations. Assisted by the International City Management Association, it conducted a mail questionnaire survey to analyze the characteristics and activities of such associations. This bulletin was prepared in the Division of Industrial Relations, Office of Wages and Industrial Relations, by Ronald W. Glass and the late John David Korpi, under the direction of Leon E. Lunden, Project Director. iii Contents Page Chapter I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Scope and method of study................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter II. Unions and associations in cities...................................................................................................................... Type of organization................................................................................................................................................................. Government activities................................................................................................................................................................. Representation by organization............................................................................................................................................. 3 3 3 4 Chapter III. Municipal public employee associations. Basic characteristics, growth and stru c tu re ............. Basic characteristics ................................................................................................................................................................. Association a c tiv itie s.......................................................................................................................................................... Regional d istrib u tio n .......................................................................................................................................................... Distribution by city size and metropolitan characteristics.................................................................................. Occupational distribution ................................................................................................................................................ Jurisdiction.............................................................................................................................................................................. Civil service coverage.......................................................................................................................................................... Growth and structure of municipal public employee associations........................................................................ Period of o rg an izatio n ....................................................................................................................................................... Membership growth, 1962-68 .......................................................................................................................................... A ffiliations.............................................................................................................................................................................. Dues s tru c tu re ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 Chapter IV. Employer-employee relations ......................................................................................................................... Recognition.............................................................................................................................................................................. Type of docum ents............................................................................................................................................................. Frequency of meetings and issues d iscu ssed ............................................................................................................ 10 10 10 11 Tables: 1. Survey scope and responses on employee representation in cities by city size, 1968-69 ................. 2. Employment in cities responding on employee representation by city size, 1968-69 ....................... 3. Represented and unrepresented employment in cities reporting dealings with unions and associations, by city size, 1968-69 4. Represented employment in cities reporting dealings with unions or associations, by type of organization and city size, 1968-69 ............................................................................................................ 5. Number and percent of cities reporting dealings with unions or associations by government activity and city size, 1968-69 ............................................................................................................................ 6. Employment and represented employment by government activity and city size, 1968-69 . . . . 7. Responses to ICMA and BLS surveys of public employee associations by city size, 1968-69 . . . 8. Association membership by type of operation and city size, 1968-69 ..................................................... 9. Municipal public employee associations by region, 1968-69 ........................................................................ v 12 12 12 13 13 14 15 13 13 Contents-Continued Tables— Continued 10. Percent distribution of union membership, estimated government union membership, and membership in municipal public employee associations, 1968-69 .................................................................. 11. Municipal public employee associations by city size and city type, 1968-69 ................................................. 12. Municipal public employee associations by occupational composition, 1968-69 .......................................... 13. Municipal public employee associations by jurisdiction, 1968-69 ..................................................................... 14. Municipal public employee association membership by civil service codes or regulations, 1968-69 . . . . 15. Municipal public employee associations by founding dates and city size, 1968-69 ..................................... 16. Membership growth of municipal public employee associations by region, 1962-68 ................................... 17. Affiliations of municipal public employee associations by type of operation, 1968-69 .............................. 18. Annual dues for municipal public employee associations by type of operation, 1 9 6 8 -6 9 ........................... 19. Type of recognition for municipal public employee associations by city size, 1968-69 .............................. 20. Type of documents used to record the results of negotiations by type of recognition, 1968-69 ............. 21. Frequency of meetings by type of recognition, 1968-69 ...................................................................................... 22. Distribution of associations and membership by issues discussed, 1968-69 .................................................... 23. Role of municipal public employee associations in grievance cases by type of recognition, 1968-69 . . . 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 Appendixes: A. Supplemental ta b le s ..............................................................................................................................................................21 B. Municipal public employee associations and membership in standard metropolitan statistical areas, 1968-69 ................................................................................................................................................................ 39 C. Employee organizations questionnaire.............................................................................................................................41 D. BLS questionnaire................................................................................................................................................................. 45 vi Municipal Public Employee Associations Chapter I. Introduction Background public employee associations which were concerned, in large measure, with health, welfare, and retirement issues, that is, fraternal and benevolent organizations. The strength of these organizations lay in their knowl edge of the inner workings of government, and they often appeared before legislative bodies on behalf of their retired and active members. Although associations, to a large degree, had no practical experience in day-byday labor-management relations and had rejected such a role in fact, some of their members, nevertheless, turned to them for representation in preference to unions. Many associations, some willingly, some only because of pressure from competing unions, assumed this responsibility and made the transition to near unions. During the 1948-68 period, expanding services have resulted in an impressive growth in Federal, State, and local government employment. From 1948 to 1968, public sector employment doubled from 5.9 to 11.8 million. Of this growth, four-fifths, or 5.2 million, was an increase in the number of State and local employees.1 Increases as dramatic as this do not occur without some dislocations and organizational strains. To settle griev ances and to develop a voice on wages and other matters that government employers could resolve, State, county, and city employees moved towards various forms of col lective action. The last half of the 1 9 6 0 ’s witnessed a remarkable and largely unexpected expansion of labor-management activities at all levels of government. Union membership among government employees increased dramatically and was characterized by labor leaders as the new frontier of union growth. Climaxed by the Post Office Department stoppage early in 1970, government work stoppages moved from a negligible statistic in the early 1 9 6 0 ’s to one of considerable importance in the later years. At the same time, new laws, executive orders, and legal interpretations granted full or partial collective bargaining rights to government workers. Many city workers turned to several small unions al ready in existence. For the 1948-68 period, combined membership for the American Federation of Teachers, the International Association of Fire Fighters, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, all AFL—CIO affiliates, more than tripled and rose from 2 0 8 ,0 0 0 in 1949 to 6 6 2 ,1 2 0 in 1968. Two-thirds of the increase occurred during the 1 9 6 0 ’s. Thus, the three unions, which had established small foot holds before 19 6 0, were able to take advantage of the more receptive collective bargaining environment that subsequently developed. By 1968, membership of the three unions totaled more than four-fifths of all 8 0 4 ,0 0 0 union members who were State and local employees.2 However, not all employees seeking collective action turned to unions. Many were already members of local Scope and method of study The Bureau mailed questionnaires to 1,306 public employee associations in 8 2 4 cities that reported public employee associations. A mailing list was derived with the cooperation of the International City Management Association (ICMA) from a 2 ,0 7 2 city survey that it had conducted in 1968-69. Of the 2 ,0 7 2 cities with populations of 1 0 ,000 or more surveyed by ICMA, 1,536 having a total municipal employment of 1.2 million responded. Fewer than onethird of the cities (5 0 3 ), accounting for under 10 per cent of total employment (1 1 1 ,0 3 3 ), reported they had neither unions nor associations. (See tables 1 and 2.) The remaining two-thirds, or 1,033 cities, the employ ment of which totaled almost 1.1 million, stated that some or all of their employees were represented by either unions or associations. But only 8 2 4 reported 1 According to preliminary BLS data, growth continued be yond 1968. In 1970 employment reached 12.6 million; all of the increase was accounted for by State and local employment. 2 Directory o f National and International Labor Unions in the United States, 1969, BLS Bulletin 1665. These develop ments are discussed in detail in an article, “Union Membership Among Government Employees,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1970, pp. 15-20. 1 public employee associations. Represented employment, 7 7 5 ,1 9 7 , amounted to 71 percent of all workers in the 1,033 cities reporting unions or associations and 6 4 per cent of employees in all 1,536 responding cities. (See table 3.) (See appendix C for sample questionnaire.) Responses came to the Bureau from 9 2 7 , or 71 per cent, of the 1,306 associations in 5 8 4 , or 7 1 .5 percent, of the 8 2 4 cities. Of the 9 2 7 associations, 185 were engaged in neither legislative nor representation activi ties for public employees. No attempt was made to re solve the discrepancies between the responses of the city managers and the later responses of the associations. In some cases, conceivably, associations had an informal relationship with the city. Therefore, they were un certain of their legal status, and preferred to claim no role rather than jeopardize the existing relationship. All associations replying in the manner described were considered outside the scope of the study. An additional 4 0 organizations replied that they were unions and not associations, and thus, were excluded from the study. Finally, 4 0 questionnaires were incom plete or otherwise unusable. The remaining 6 6 2 associ ations, scattered over 4 3 8 cities and having a combined membership of over one-quarter million, form the basis of the analysis in chapters III and IV. (See appendix D for sample questionnaire.) 2 Chapter II. Unions and Associations in Cities Overall, unions were reported in almost three-fourths, or 7 5 7 , of the 1,033 cities that had organizations; as sociations in almost four-fifths, or 8 2 4 .5 The ICMA survey elicited responses from 1,536 cities having a total municipal employment of 1.2 million. (See tables 1 and 2.) Two-thirds (1 ,0 3 3 ) of the cities reported that some or all their employees belonged to a public employee association or union. These accounted for almost 1.1 million municipal employees. The re maining one-third (5 0 3 ) reported no associations or unions. Represented employment, 7 7 5 ,1 9 7 , amounted to 71 percent of all employees in the 1,033 cities reporting associations or unions and 6 4 percent of employees in the 1,536 responding cities. (See table 3.) The closeness of these two proportions reflects the small population and low employment totals for cities reporting no unions and associations. The proportion of representation to total employ ment varied by size of city from a low of 25 percent for cities of 1 0 ,0 0 0 to 2 5 ,0 0 0 to a high of 93 percent for cities of a million or more. No city that reported unions or associations had fewer than 43 or more than 63 per cent of its employees organized. The 64-percent average for all cities exceeded the averages for each city size except for those having populations of 1 million or more: New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and D etroit.3 These cities had 51 percent of all represented employees and, therefore, influenced the all-cities aver age in an upward direction. (See table 1.) Government activities The questionnaire requested information on eight dis tinct activities generally carried out by municipalities: Police and fire protection, public works, public utilities, public health and hospitals, noninstructional educational staff, parks and recreation, and public welfare. The pro portion of cities that reported representation within each activity varied widely, but cities most often reported em ployee organization in police protection, fire protection, and public works, less often in parks and recreation and public utilities, and least often in the remaining activities. (See table 5.) Among the last, organization among non instructional educational staff and public health and hospital workers appeared low because, in many in stances, their activities fall outside the jurisdiction of the municipal government and are instead the responsibility of separate agencies. A high proportion of cities of 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 inhabitants or more reported employee organizations in each activ ity. Proportions dropped significantly in smaller cities. E x c e p t for p o lic e and fire protection and to a lesser ex tent public works, representation was relatively low in all size groups and gave some indication of the general organizing direction that unions and associations seem to be taking. The ranking of government activities by the propor tion of employees represented differed in some respects from the ranking by the proportion of cities reporting Type of organization Of 1,033 municipalities reporting some or all em ployees represented, in 4 8 5 , or 4 7 percent, the organiza tions were exclusively either unions in 2 0 9 cities or associations in 2 7 6 cities. (See table 4 .) These cities, however, were generally small— hence, low in total em ployment and in representation. Most employees worked in the remaining municipalities that had both unions and associations. Although only 53 percent, or 5 4 8 , of the 1,033 cities reporting representation had both types of organizations, these cities accounted for 91 percent of all represented workers. Representation in the four large cities influenced, but was not critical to, the findings.4 3 In its original mailing, the ICMA included two additional cities— Chicago and Houston— but neither responded to the questionnaire. 4 If the four largest cities were eliminated from the study, the proportion of cities that had both unions and associations would remain unchanged and the percentage of total represented employment in such cities would drop less than 10 percentage points, from 91.3 percent to 82.4 percent. 5 Unfortunately, the questionnaire and responses precluded a specific allocation of represented employees to each type of organization; hence, a comparison of relative strength could not be made. 3 organization by unions or associations. Where fewer than 4 0 percent of the cities reported organization in specific activities, the percent of employees represented, in all cases, was markedly higher: Government activity Police p ro te c tio n .................. Fire protection .................... Public w o r k s ........................ Parks and recreation ........... Public u tilitie s ...................... Public health and hospitals ........... ................. Noninstructional educa tional staff .......................... Public w e lfa re ...................... All other a ctivitie s............... Employee organizations 82.7 76.2 60.1 39.8 32.0 73.7 82.1 52.3 47.8 55.7 11.0 58.8 8.3 5.9 39.5 58.8 71.4 66.5 1,033 Unions:1 Fire Fighters ................................................... State, County and Municipal Employees . . . . Teamsters ........................ Building trades unions, except Laborers . . . . Laborers............................................................ Service Em ployees.......................................... Other unions ................................................... 579 344 98 55 40 37 129 Associations: Fraternal Order of Police ............................... Other associations .......................................... 375 525 T h e n u m b e r o f c itie s re p o rtin g re p re se n ta tio n an d th e n u m b e r o f lo ca l u n io n s re p o rte d b y ea ch in te rn a tio n a l u n io n are n o t c o m p a ra b le b e cau se so m e u n io n s have lo c a ls also at F e d e ra l, S ta te , an d c o u n t y g o v e rn m e n t levels an d o th e rs in p riv a te in d u s tr y ; so m e c itie s have m ore th a n 1 lo ca l u n io n o f th e p a re n t o r g a n iz a tio n ; an d so m e lo cal u n io n s have ju ris d ic t io n over m o re th a n 1 n e ig h b o rin g c it y . In the view of city managers reporting, therefore, many municipal public employee associations already are shifting from benevolent and fraternal activities to rep resentation for labor-management relations. Each union or association has developed individual patterns of organization of government activities. The State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), for example, represented employees in all activities, but most frequently in public works, parks and recreation, and public utilities. The Teamsters (IBT) were found most often in public works; and building trades unions were about evenly divided between public works and public utilities. The Laborers (LIUNA) and Service Em ployees ‘(SEIU) were in public works as well. Associ ations other than the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) were reported in all activities— and in some, in signif icant numbers, including police and fire protection, public works, and parks and recreation. (See appendix tables A-l to A-9 for details on the kinds of government activities which particular unions and associations have organized.) In a similar manner, each government activity had its own pattern of representation by union or association. The FOP clearly dominated in police protection, but Again, larger cities exerted an upward influence upon the proportions of employees represented, especially those of 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 or more. (See table 6.) Police protec tion and fire protection continued to have the largest percentages of workers represented in most city sizes. Public welfare, because of its almost total organization in cities of 1 million and over6 replaced public works in third place. Organization in all activities was almost com plete in cities of this size. Significant numbers of workers in all activities, in cities of 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 to 1 million, how ever, still remain to be organized. Although proportions in cities below this size as a rule drop significantly, in many cities employees are relatively few and scattered and could discourage organizing efforts of unions and associations. 7 But in national totals and proportions, organization by unions and associations is established firmly in each activity. Representation by organization As was noted earlier, 7 5 7 cities reported unions and 8 2 4 cities reported public employee associations. The responding cities were asked to indicate those unions and associations that represented their employees. The re sults reveal that, in the cities studied, a number of unions are well represented, predominantly the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, both affiliates of the AFL-CIO. Among associations, only the Fraternal Order of Police had affiliates in a large number of cities, but additional unions and associ ations reported as follows: ......................................................... All cities Proportion of cities reporting Proportion of unions or total employees associations represented Cities reporting unions or associations 6 These four cities account for almost three-fifths of total employment (57.9 percent) in this activity. 7 A note of caution: The unorganized proportions are per haps higher than these data reveal, on the assumption that, in most cases, the 536 cities which did not respond to the survey questionnaire did not deal with employee organizations. How ever, over two-thirds of the nonreporting cities were in the smallest size group and, therefore, few employees would prob ably be added to the organizing potential. 4 other associations— such as associations of police chiefs, police sergeants, police benevolent groups, etc.— also were involved. Moreover, the AFSCME, has a small, but by no means insignificant presence. Among fire fighters, the major organization is the IAFF, and to a lesser extent, local associations of firemen, fire chiefs, etc. (See appendix tables A-10 to A-18— to review the same city data in terms of activities.) For the remaining activities, the AFSCME was fre quently the representative, but never to the exclusion of other organizations, especially municipal public em ployee associations. (See appendix tables A-12 to A-18.) 5 Chapter III. Municipal Public Employee Associations Basic Characteristics, Growth and Structure The Bureau received responses from 9 2 7 public em ployee associations in 58 9 cities. Of the 9 2 7 associations responding, 185 were engaged in neither legislative nor representation activities. An additional 4 0 organizations replied that they were unions, and thus, were excluded from the study. Forty questionnaires were incomplete or otherwise unusable. The remaining 6 6 2 associations in 4 3 8 cities had a combined membership of over onequarter of a million. They form the basis of the analysis in this chapter. (See table 7.) to a degree, is questionable. Conceivably, they have no planned legislative program at present; however, given the nature of public employment, possibly they would become involved in proposing, supporting, or opposing bills if the interests of their members were at stake. A small minority of respondents (3 7 ) limited their activity to representing city employees before legislative bodies and excluded direct dealings with supervisors and other city officials. The overwhelming majority of their members were in five associations headquartered in cities of 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 or more. One represented utilities workers in a major city; it had been operating in the traditional legislative area for more than 30 years and received no dues from its members. The other four were associations of policemen largely created to lobby for pension and civil service reforms.8 Regional distribution. Associations were concentrated in three regions— the Middle Atlantic, East North Central, and Pacific States. Only the Pacific and Middle Atlantic regions reported large numbers of members representing almost 54 percent of all a s s o c ia tio n s a n d 82 percent of all association members. (See table 9.) California (2 0 5 reporting associations) and New York (8 2 ), contributed heavily to this regional polarity. Only one other State, Michigan, showed a significant concen tration, 61 associations, but membership was relatively low. Regional patterns for association membership, total union membership, and estimated government union membership are similar— where one is low, so are the others, and vice versa. (See table 10.) However, certain differences appear within these patterns. For one, total union membership and estimated government union membership follow each other closely and, as a rule, their proportions do not vary importantly. However, in the South Atlantic States, for reasons not readily appar ent, the proportion in government unions exceeds that in all unions by a considerable margin. Basic characteristics Association activities. Over three-fifths, or 4 1 5 of the associations studied, involving more than four-fifths of the total membership, or 2 2 3 ,9 3 3 , were engaged in legislative activities and, at the same time, represented city employees in collective bargaining situations on wages and working conditions. (See table 8.) In essence, these associations not only represented employees in dealings with management but also appeared before law making bodies on civil service or related personnel matters, activities which parallel those of unions of gov ernment employees. Until the recent growth of collective bargaining in city government, the dominant activity of local asso ciations and unions for a long time had been legislative. Lacking a formal labor-management procedure or com munications channel, employee organizations were left with no alternative but to lobby to achieve their goals. In the case of associations, these objectives related only to part of the whole range of collective bargaining issues that concerned unions. For example, associations petitioned lawmakers to improve retirement provisions, the civil service status of city employees, etc., but, in general, did little about day-to-day problems at the workplace. About 2 1 0 associations represented city employees only on wages, hours, working conditions and griev ances, etc., and worked directly with city officials. None of these associations reported that they were en gaged in legislative activities, but their negative response, 8 For a general discussion, see J. Joseph Lowenberg, “Policemen and Firefighters” in Seymour Wolfbein, ed., Emerg ing Sectors o f Collective Bargaining, Braintree, Mass., D. H. Mark, 1970, p. 146. 6 Association membership follows the same general pattern as the two union measures except for the East and West North Central States, where the ratio of as sociation members is markedly lower than the other two. Where the proportion of union and estimated gov ernment union membership was low, association mem bership was lower; and where the first two measures were high, the North Central States excepted, association membership was much higher. Distribution by city size and m etropolitan characteris tics. Not surprisingly, associations and their membership are distributed at opposite limits. The largest number of associations are concentrated in cities under 1 0 0 ,00 0 , and constitute almost three-quarters of all associations in this study’s scope. (See table 11.) On the other hand, cities of 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 inhabitants or more accounted for slightly more than one-tenth of all associations, but more than one-half of all association members. These larger cities employ numerically greater staffs and con sequently have fewer, but larger, associations. Associ ations also exist in smaller municipalities, but their membership, relative to that for all associations, is low. From an organizer’s viewpoint, larger cities offer not only greater organizing potential, but also economy of size, in that the organizer may concentrate his energies for maximum results. Recruiting of members and main taining an organization is a costly undertaking, often not covered by monthly dues payments. Most associations confined their activities to one city. (See table 11.) In some instances, they also represented some members from smaller jurisdictions bordering on the city. Ten associations, mostly police organizations, were active in more than one city within this study’s scope. Six of the 10 involved associations in smaller cities located in nonmetropolitan areas. Most cities in the survey were part of standard metro politan statistical areas (SMSA’s)— i.e., the city or cities with which associations were dealing and the surrounding areas were economically and socially integrated and had a combined area population of at least 5 0 ,0 0 0 . Under this definition, over four-fifths of the associations were in metropolitan areas, as were almost nine-tenths of the membership. (See table 11.) In total, 116 SMSA’s incorporated the 6 6 2 associations, but only four SMSA’s SMSA T o ta l.......................... Los Angeles— Long Beach, Calif ................................... New York, N . Y .................... San Francisco— Oakland, C a lif..................................... Detroit, M ic h ........................ Associations Membership 190 141,408 60 48 35,284 53,162 42 40 45,982 6,980 contained substantial numbers of associations or mem bership. With one exception, these conformed with the east coast-west coast pattern noted earlier; in this case, the west coast dominated: 9 In total, the four SMSA’s accounted for 2 8 .7 percent of the associations and 53.5 percent of their total membership. Occupational distribution. Almost half, or 4 7 .0 per cent, of the members of associations were policemen or firemen, followed by professional, technical and clerical employees, and then by blue-collar workers. (See table 12.) The proportions would differ markedly, especially for professional, technical, and blue-collar workers, if city-related special districts, such as school districts, had been surveyed. The low proportion for blue-collar em ployees stems first from the historical development of associations which focused on protective occupations and white-collar employees, and second from the tradi tional efforts by unions to organize craft workers. Two-thirds of the associations, having 4 9 percent of all members, covered only a single occupation, again predominantly policemen. (See table 12.) Of the 110 associations having members in all three occupational groups, 9 6 were in cities having a population of fewer than 1 0 0 ,00 0 . In smaller cities, separate associations for different categories of employees would be less practical than a citywide employees association which would then have sufficient membership to be a viable organization. Jurisdiction. Eighty-eight percent or 5 8 0 municipal public employee associations were made up of only city employees; other jurisdictions supplied the remain ing members, who were over one-fifth of total members. (See table 13.) Most of these were in closely associated units— county governments and school districts— which shared interests or had similar activities to those of city employees. A few were employed by special dis tricts having separate taxing or revenue authorizations, such as port or water authorities, of by the Federal Government. One percent worked for private employers. Gvil service coverage. Civil service systems were designed to prevent political abuses of government workers and to see that jobs went to qualified appli cants. Independent civil service commissions established rules and procedures governing, for example, hiring and firing, promotions, and the settlement of grievances. Over three-fourths of the associations reported some or all of their membership were covered by civil service regulations; over four-fifths of all members held civil service positions. (See table 14.) In fact, almost twothirds of the associations and about three-fourths of all See appendix B for a complete listing of the 7 116 SMSA’s. added to the rolls. (See table 16.) By comparison, the growth rate for the same period was lower for total union membership (15.1 percent) and substantially higher for government union membership (7 5 .9 per cent). 13 Although the Pacific States contributed sub stantially to the growth, its 18.5-percent rate of growth fell below the 28.7-percent general rate for all reporting associations. The 40.3-percent growth in the Middle Atlantic States was substantially greater than the nation al average. These results suggest that the Pacific region, the largest in total membership, is stabilizing, and the focus of activity is shifting toward the Middle Atlantic area, which, for the moment, at least, appears the more dynamic.14 Affiliations. Approximately three-fifths of the associ ations reported that they were affiliated with organi zations of like associations, either on a Statewide or national basis. (See table 17.) The latter was particularly true for associations of policemen, which accounted for nearly two-thirds of all associations that reported affiliations. To some degree, affiliations— police and other— stem from earlier days when prohibitions on collective bargaining with city employers were the rule. Associ ations, at that time, took their cases directly to State and municipal legislative bodies. Consolidated, larger voices were more likely to be heard than a number of smaller, disparate voices. Hence, affiliations took place for common, continuing legislative purposes: Working conditions, civil service procedures, retirement, etc. The only group of associations to report a low affili ation frequency were those which performed represen tation functions exclusively, in direct contact with city officials. (See table 17.) Of the 142 associations that reported no affiliations, 77 had been founded in 1962 or later— during a period of growing acceptance of col lective bargining with municipal employers. Aggregate data give the number of associations reporting affiliations with larger organizations. However, members were in organizations reporting 100-percent civil service coverage. On the other hand, civil service systems, although well-established, were by no means universal. About 35 percent, or 2 3 3 , reported that some or all employees were not covered, of which 151 reported no coverage or did not respond to the Bureau’s question.10 Most.associations in this latter category were in cities having popula tions under 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 . Conceivably, smaller cities with low employment levels have as yet not adopted inde pendent civil service systems. Eighty-two associations also reported varying proportions of their members out side the civil service system. In some cases, this exception results from the deliberate exclusion of certain groups of workers from an existing system, for example, secretarial and clerical staff to major city executives. Among association members themselves are some who have reached high management levels in municipal administration, but who have retained association mem bership, and are perhaps active in the organization. Growth and structure of municipal public employee associations Period o f organization. Of the 6 6 2 associations in the study, all but 50 reported the year in which they were founded. Of the 6 1 2 responding, most were formed after World War II and more than one-third, or 2 1 5 , during the last decade. (See table 15.) Only 12 percent or 73 existed in 1929. By 1 9 3 9, another 84 or over eight a year had been established compared with over 10 a year in the 1 9 4 0 ’s, over 15 in the 1 9 5 0 ’s, and over 21 in the 1 9 6 0 ’s. Well over half, or 3 5 1 , were established between 1 950 and 1 9 6 8 .11 For all city size groups, stirrings during the 1 9 5 0 ’s and the dispersion of representation rights in the 1 9 6 0 ’s, trickling down from the Federal Government to State and local jurisdictions, affected the growth in the num ber of associations. In cities of 1 0 ,0 00 to 2 5 ,0 0 0 , for ex ample, almost half the reporting associations were estab lished during the 1 9 6 0 ’s, and almost two-thirds during the 1 9 5 0 ’s and 1 9 6 0 ’s. (See table 15.) Similar propor tions exist for cities of 1 million or more, and slightly smaller ratios for other city size groups as associations proliferated. The scope of the present study prevented the development of any information, however, on the factors that affected the growth of associations.12 M em bership growth, 1962-68. Questionnaire re sponses on membership in 1962 and in 1968 show that association membership, as well as the number of associations, increased from 1962 to 1 968. For the 4 6 0 organizations reporting membership for both years, almost 5 4 ,0 0 0 workers, or more than 28 percent, were 10 Often a “no response” is likely to mean “do not have.” 11 No information is available on the number of associations in existence during these periods. The above data refer only to founding dates of organizations functioning at the time of this survey. 12 Speculations cannot be answered (1) that associations which developed before 1960 did not include employee repre sentation functions, but adopted these activities after the estab lishment of city collective bargaining rights; (2) that associations which developed since 1960 were established specifically to re present public employees at the bargaining table;.and (3) that as sociations established during the 1950’s and 1960’s were devel oped to offset the growth of municipal unions. 13 “Union Membership among Government Employees,” op. cit.f p. 16. 14 Possibly, enabling legislation and administrative orders have occurred more often in the Middle Atlantic than in the Pacific area. Hence, the greater growth in the East. 8 Dues structure. Dues are the major source of oper ating revenue for associations. When associations partic ipated only in legislative and benevolent activities, dues levels could remain low. Lawmaking sessions of State, county, and city legislative bodies often lasted for only a few months each year, and associations, therefore, required few, if any, full-time staff. On the other hand, day-to-day representation of city employees, plus annual or biennial negotiations, require a year-round profes sional staff and more income. Although most associ ations studied were involved in employee representation, annual dues reported were nominal. (See table 18.) As associations added employee representation to their ex isting activities, (a) adjusting dues levels to operating needs may have lagged; or (b) representation activities at the time of the survey may have been modest. Also, members who are full-time city employees may do a great deal of the work and receive no compensation from their associations. By comparison, a study by the National Industrial Conference Board noted that two-thirds of those nation al unions establishing dues minimums in their consti tutions (amounts above the minimum could be set at local union option) required payments of $3 to $5 a m o n th .18 Only 106, or fewer than one-fifth, of the 6 0 0 associations in this study reported annual dues of $ 3 0 or more, or less than $3 a month. (See table 18.) Dues for most associations, in fact, fell well below $ 3 0 . Most as sociations having only legislative activities requested less than $ 2 0 in yearly dues. Most of the associationshaving dues of $ 3 0 or more were policemen and firemen groups. Associations made up of blue-collar and manual crafts tended toward the lower end of the scale. data on these parent bodies and their relative impor tance are inconclusive, because some questionnaire responses indicate an unknown number of associations which had multiple affiliations but did not report each one. Thus, an association belonging to an intrastate group and to a statewide organization as well might have reported only one affiliation. For this reason, data below the aggregate level may be understated and the relative importance of groups of affiliates might differ if report ing had been more complete. Among police organizations, Statewide police groups and the national Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) were particularly prominent. In total membership, statewide police groups were more important than the FOP. Affiliates of the FOP were in 22 States, largely east of the Mississippi, Statewide police organizations were re ported in 12 States, primarily in New York (the Police Conference of New York, Inc.), Wisconsin (the Wisconsin Professional Policemen’s Association), and California (the Peace Officers Research Association of California). Among associations reporting affiliation with State police organizations, 10 also reported an alliance with the International Conference of Police Associations (ICPA). 15 (See table 17.) Firemen association affilia tions were relatively rare, since these employees had long been preempted by a trade union, the International Association of Fire Fighters (AFL—CIO). Among firemen’s associations and associations other than policemen’s, the only significant cluster of organiza tions reporting involved statewide alliances of State, county, and municipal employees. (See table 15.) Two State organizations alone accounted for 68 of the 76 affiliations, namely, the California League of City Em ployee Associations and the New York Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. Below the State level, a number of coordinating councils referred to specific in state areas— in scope, a city (e.g., the Des Moines Mu nicipal Joint Council), a greater metropolitan area (e.g., the Bay Area Public Employees Coordinating Council), or a county (e.g., the Los Angeles County Employees Association).16 National affiliations were cited infrequently. Besides the International Conference of Police Associations and the Fraternal Order of Police, affiliations were reported with the American Nurses Association and the National Federation of Licensed Practical Nurses.17 15 ICPA. Two additional associations reported only affiliation with In early 1971, the officers of the Los Angeles County Em ployees Association approved, subject to membership ratifica tion, affiliation with the Service Employees International Union (AFL-CIO). The number of municipally employed registered nurses belonging to the ANA is understated, because ANA subordinate bodies were unable to separate and report the number of nurses in city employment from those in private, nonprofit hospitals. 18 Edward R. Curtin, “Union Initiation Fees, Dues and Per Capita Tax,” Conference Board Record, August 1967, p. 9. Since 1967, union convention reports of dues and per capita tax increases indicate that, if restudied, this dues range would move to a higher level. 9 Chapter IV. Employer-Employee Relations Recognition The degree of recognition accorded to local associations largely depends upon the law governing labormanagement relations in each city. According to a recent study . . . “The majority of States do not have statutes encouraging employee organization or providing machinery for regularizing public labor-management re lationships.” 19 However, “there has been a significant trend in the past decade in the States toward accepting employee organizations . . . ” 20 In its questionnaire, the Bureau asked responding associations to define the kind of recognition that it had received from city govern ment. Almost 6 0 percent, or 3 9 3 , involving nearly 65 percent of the total membership, reported that they had been granted formal recognition— that is, recognition by law, executive order, or some other administrative promulgation. (See table 19.) Such recognition generally connotes an enduring, relatively firm relationship, us ually accompanied by legal requirements to meet and confer or to negotiate agreements or other bilateral documents. The proportion of associations having formal recogni tion appears high because questionnaires were sent only to organizations designated by city management as having a relationship with the city. Associations in municipal ities in which no relationship— formal or informal— exists as yet, if included, would diminish the proportion, but to what degree is unknown. Except for those in cities of 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 to 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 , over 50 percent of the associations in each city-size group reported formal recognition. Cities of 1 million inhabi tants or more, where labor relations machinery usually is better established than in smaller cities, had a higher incidence of formal recognition than other city-size groups (81.1 percent of all associations and 72.1 per cent of members). Type of documents The results of negotiations in the private sector are transcribed into a collective bargaining agreement. Sub sequent questions of interpretation and application are resolved through the grievance and arbitration procedure. Although management may assert certain functions as belonging solely to it, in practice such “management rights” may be circumscribed by specific agreement provisions. In the public sector, where legislative and executive branches in many cities retain a strong conviction con cerning the sovereignty of government, the type of document carrying the results of negotiation varies, from the bilateral collective bargaining agreement to a variety of unilaterally promulgated documents. In many of the latter, however, unions and associations exert a strong influence. Of the 6 6 2 associations in the study, 5 3 1 , covering four-fifths of the membership, reported that the results of their meetings or negotiations had been reduced to some bilateral or unilateral written form. (See table 2 0.) Virtually every association having formal recognition indicated the results of negotiations were recorded in written documents; informally recognized associations were significantly less successful, but still, a clear major ity indicated written documents. Most frequently, associ ations reported a written agreement— this occurred in two-fifths of the 531 reporting associations, covering almost half the members in reporting associations. How ever, unilateral ordinances and personnel regulations each applied to more members. Written agreements were a rarity among informally recognized associa tions,21 and unilateral documents in relative abundance, as might be expected. Seven out of 10 associations had a single written doc ument with city management; most frequently, for for mally recognized associations, they were written agree ments, but for informally recognized groups, they were about evenly divided between personnel regulations and memoranda of understanding. (See appendix table A-19.) Although fewer associations reported more than one type of document, these applied to over two-thirds of the membership. Of particular interest were those for mally recognized organizations reporting written agree ments or two other documents or more. Presumably, in 19 Joseph P. Goldberg, “Changing Policies in Public Em ployee Labor Relations/* Monthly Labor Review, July 1970 p 5 2i I b id * Indeed, where they were reported there might have been some confusion between the definition of an agreement and a memorandum of understanding to which these associations contributed. 10 some cities, certain issues are not formally subject to negotiations and, hence, cannot be included in a col lective bargaining agreement. In other situations des ignated issues likely are reserved to a legislative body and result in the issuance of ordinances, while others come within the jurisdiction of city executives and result in personnel regulations and similar promulgations. Associations in cities of 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 or more accounted for 12.4 percent of all associations reporting written documents, but because of larger city employment and hence, large association membership, represented 51.8 percent of all members. (See appendix tables A-20 and A-21.) Most associations with written documents were reported in cities having populations of 1 0 ,0 0 0 to 1 0 0 ,00 0 , and surprisingly a large number reported written bilateral agreements only, or in combination with other documents, especially where the association had received formal recognition. However, cities of 1 mil lion or more represented most of the members under written agreements alone or in combination with other documents. In cities of 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 to 1 million, associa tions so far have had little success in negotiating bilateral agreements, even where they are formally recognized. Frequency of meetings and issues discussed In private industry w here provisions for labormanagement relations committees have been negotiated, parties meet regularly to discuss problems in the bar gaining unit. Some evidence of this kind of activity was noted in Federal agreements. 22 As a rule, however, unions and Federal agencies held meetings irregularly, usually to discuss problems in their relationship. Associ ations indicated some held regular labor-management meetings, but more often these meetings were irreg ular. 23 (See table 2 1 .) Only 13 percent of the 611 associations, or 2 2 .2 percent of the members replying to the question about meetings, held regular meetings. The issues discussed between associations and city officials did not differ markedly from those for unions in private industry. Pay ranked first, then working con ditions and fringe benefits, and then a series of items listed in the Bureau’s questionnaire, all reported (except for discharges) by at least half of the associations. Although there may have been some propensity to check off all items, since the questionnaire requested a check for any issues that “have been or may be discussed with supervisors or officials,” the broad response still remains an indicator of an experience in labor-management affairs. It is not a response, however, of the depth or quality of that experience. Interestingly, 4 9 2 associations had discussed grievance procedures with supervisors or officials, and 583 had participated in the city’s grievance system. (See tables 22 and 2 3 .) The difference probably stems from separate grievance systems under municipal civil service which the associations had not negotiated, but had been assigned a role along with the grievant. Of the 583 associations reporting, only 3 6 responded that they had no role in the grievance procedure, almost two-thirds of which were associations having informal recognition. Fourfifths of the associations, incorporating nine-tenths of the membership in responding organizations, affirmed an active role in the system— i.e., representing the ag grieved. Members in associations with formal recognition were more likely to have their association represent them in grievance hearings than members in associations with informal recognition. Seven out of 10 of such informally recognized organizations, however, still reported that they represented the grievant; yet, the incidence of as sociations in this group which played passive roles— i.e., acting as observers or only being notified of the outcome of the hearings— was higher than in formally recognized associations. 22 Collective Bargaining Agreements in the Federal Service, Late Summer, 1964, BLS Bulletin 1451, 1965, pp. 49-50. 23 The meetings referred to occurred for reasons other than for contract negotiations. No information was developed on fre quency of meetings. 11 Table 2. Employment in cities responding on employee representation by city size, 1968-69 Table 1. Survey scope and responses on employee representation in cities by city size, 1968-69 C ities in survey City s iz e Cities respond ing Number Total -------------------------------------- 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 and o v e r ------------------------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 -----------------------2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ---------------------------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ---------------------------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 -----------------------------2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 -------------------------------1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 -------------------------------- C i t ie s r e p o r t i n g no d e a l i n g s w it h un i o n s and association s Percent Percent of c i t i e s of c i t i e s Number respond respond ing ing Em ployment C i t ie s r e p o r ti n g d e a l in g s with uni ons and a s s o c i a t i o n s 2,072 1,536 1,033 67. 2 503 32. 8 6 21 27 96 232 477 1, 213 4 19 24 76 197 366 850 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 100 . 0 100 . 0 . _ 95. 80. 86. 78. 55. 8 2 8 4 0 - 1 15 26 79 382 Cities resp ond ing C it y s i z e C ities reporting d e a l i n g s w it h un io ns and a s s o c i a t i o n s Number Total ------------------------------------- 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 and o v e r -----------------------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 -----------------------2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ---------------------------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ---------------------------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 -----------------------------2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 -------------------------------1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 -------------------------------- 4. 2 19. 8 13. 2 21. 6 45. 0 Percent of c i t i e s respond ing 1 , 2 0 7 , 4 4 6 1, 0 96, 413 90. 8 427,084 213,827 82,305 115,926 1 05 ,8 10 90,420 61 ,0 41 100.0 427,084 213,827 86,949 141,341 120,267 111,429 106,549 100 . 0 94. 82. 88. 81. 57. Table 3. Represented and unrepresented employment in cities reporting dealings with unions and associations, by city size, 1968-69 C i t i e s r e p o r t i n g d e a l i n g s wi th u ni on s and a s s o c i a t i o n s U n rep resen ted em p loym ent R epresented em ploym ent City s iz e Total Number Percent of c ities reporting dealings Percent of c ities responding 1 --------------------------- 1,09 6 ,4 1 3 775,197 70. 7 64. 2 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 00 and o v e r -------------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 -------------2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 -----------------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 -----------------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ------------------2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 ---------------------1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 ---------------------- 427,084 213,827 82,305 115,926 105,810 90,420 61,041 397,169 116,983 54, 837 67,420 64, 237 47, 564 26, 98 7 93. 54. 66. 58. 60. 52. 44. 93. 54. 63. 47 . 53. 42 . 25. Total S e e t a b l e 2 f o r e m p l o y m e n t in c i t i e s r e sp o n d i n g . 0 7 6 2 7 6 2 0 7 1 7 4 7 3 Number Percent of c i t i e s reporting dealings Percent of c i t i e s responding 1 321,216 29. 3 26. 6 29,915 96,844 27,468 4 8 , 5 06 41,573 42,856 34,054 7. 0 45 . 3 33. 4 41.8 39. 3 47. 4 55. 8 7. 45 . 31. 34. 34. 38. 32. 0 3 6 3 6 5 0 7 0 0 1 3 C i t i e s r e p o r ti n g no d e a l i n g s with un io ns and association s Percent of c i t i e s Number respond ing 111,033 _ 4, 644 25,415 14,457 21,009 45,508 9. 2 _ 5. 3 18. 0 12. 0 18. 9 42. 7 Table 4. Represented employment in cities reporting dealings with unions or associations, by type of organization and city size, 1968-69 C i t i e s r e p o r t i n g d e a l i n g s w it h u ni on s o r a s s o c i a t i o n s T y p e of o r g a n i z a t i o n Total City s i z e A s s o c i a t i o n s o nl y U n io n s only Number T o t a l ---------------------------------------1, 00 0, 000 and o v e r ------------------------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ------------------------25 0, 00 0 500 , 000 -------------------------- 100, 00 0 250 , 000 --------------------- -----50, 00 0 100, 000 --------------------------- 25, 00 0 50, 000 - --------------------------10, 0 0 0 25, 00 0 -------------------------------- Em ployees represented 1, 033 4 "19 23 61 171 287 468 Number Em ployees represented U n io n s and a s s o c i a t i o n s Em ployees represented Number Number Em ployees represented 775, 197 209 27,336 276 39, 378 548 708, 483 397,169 116, 983 54, 837 67,420 64, 237 47, 564 26,987 _ _ . _ 2 1 7 23 60 116 7, 094 640 4, 623 4, 582 5, 981 4, 416 - - 2 3 38 68 165 6, 273 3, 221 11,816 9, 9 84 8, 084 4 17 20 51 110 159 187 397,169 109,889 47, 9 24 59, 576 47, 839 31,599 14, 48 7 Table 5. N um ber and percent of cities reporting dealings with unions or associations, by government activity and city size, 1968-69 C it y s i z e C ities reporting d e alings wi th un i o n s or associ a t io n s G overnm ent activities 1 Percent P u b li c P e r c en t Education P e r c en t Percent Percent Percent Fire P olice P u b li c of of P u b li c of h e a l th of (nonof of protec protec cities cities utilities cities cities cities instruccities works and t io n t io n t io n a l ) reportrepo rtrep ort- hospitals rep o rtreportreporting Number ing ing Number ing Number ing Number Number ing Number of c i t i e s d e a l i n g s of c i t i e s d e a l in g s of c i t i e s d e a l in g s of c i t i e s d e a l i n g s o f c i t i e s d e a l i n g s o f c i t i e s d e a l i n g s T o t a l ------------------------- 1, 033 854 8 2. 7 787 76. 2 621 1, 000, 00 0 and o v e r ---------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ----------250, 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 --------------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 000 --------------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ----------------2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 000 ------------------1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 ------------------- 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 4 17 21 58 150 239 365 100. 0 89 . 5 91.3 95 . 1 8 7. 7 83. 3 78. 0 4 19 23 61 155 235 290 100. 0 4 17 16 49 121 182 232 1 p ersonnel. 100 . 0 100 . 0 100 . 0 90. 6 81.9 62. 0 60 . 1 100. 89 . 69 . 80 . 70 . 63 . 49 . 0 5 6 3 8 4 6 331 32 . 0 114 3 75 . 0 57.9 56. 5 52. 5 35. 1 33. 1 25 . 0 4 9 10 26 24 23 18 11 13 32 60 95 117 11. 0 100. 47. 43. 42 . 14. 8. 3. 0 4 5 6 0 0 8 86 1 5 2 16 16 20 26 8. 3 25. 26. 8. 26. 9. 7. 5. 0 3 7 2 4 0 6 Parks P e r c e n t A l l ot h e r P e r c e n t Percent occupa of and P u b li c of of cities cities cities t io n a l recre welfare f un c tio ns re po r treportrepo r t at io n ing Number ing ing Number Number of c i t i e s d e a l i n g s of c i t i e s d e a l in g s of c i t i e s d e a l i n g s 411 39. 8 61 5.9 408 39. 5 4 13 16 44 95 132 107 100 . 0 2 4 3 11 17 18 6 50. 0 21. 1 13. 0 18. 0 9.9 6. 3 1. 3 4 13 17 43 91 113 127 100 . 0 68. 4 69. 6 72. 1 55. 6 46. 0 22.9 G o v e r n m e n t a c t i v i t i e s a r e g r o u p e d by d e p a r t m e n t s and i n c lu d e bot h p r i m a r y and su p p o r t p e r s o n n e l ; f o r e x a mppollei ,c e p r o t e c t i o n i n c l u d e s u n i f o r m e d p olice personnel and 68.4 73.9 70. 5 53. 2 39.4 27. 1 n o n u n if o r m e d Table 6. Em ploym ent and represented employment by government activity and city size, 1968-69 E m p l o y m e n t in---- Ci ty s i z e All responding cities P u b li c w o r k s F i r e protection P o l i c e p r o t e c t io n T o t a l , a ll responding cities Repre s e n te d em p loy m en t Percent of a l l resp ond ing cities Total, all responding cities Repre sented em p loy m en t Percent of a ll respond ing cities T o t a l , a ll responding cities Repre sented em p loy m en t Percent of all respond ing cities T o t a l ------------------- 1, 2 0 7 , 4 4 6 186,124 137, 132 73. 7 125, 8 2 4 103, 299 82. 1 173, 302 90, 561 52. 3 1, 00 0 , 00 0 and o v e r -----50 0, 0 0 0 - 1 , 00 0 , 0 0 0 -----2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ---------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ---------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ------------2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 -------------10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 00 -------------- 4 27, 0 84 2 13, 82 7 8 6, 949 141, 341 120,267 1 1 1 , 429 106, 549 52, 524 32, 696 15, 921 21,245 22, 602 20, 285 20, 851 52, 001 22,511 13, 115 13, 572 15, 711 12, 092 8, 130 99. 0 68 . 8 82 . 4 63.9 69. 5 59.6 39. 0 21,321 21,600 13, 488 18,915 19, 807 17,077 13, 616 21,205 20,340 12,558 14, 8 6 4 16, 077 12, 310 5, 945 99 . 5 94. 2 93 . 3 78. 6 81.2 72. 1 43. 7 20, 787 33, 650 19,714 27, 541 25, 692 23, 281 22, 637 18,460 20, 396 10, 530 11, 210 13, 548 10, 522 5, 895 88.8 60.6 53. 4 40. 7 52. 7 45. 2 26. 0 132, 311 T o t a l -------------------1, 000 , 000 and o v e r ------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ------2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ----------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ----------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 -----------25, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 000 --------------10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 00 0 --------------- _________ _________ 60,328 19,065 5, 544 13, 943 10, 912 9, 811 12, 708 73, 671 55. 7 87,524 51, 431 58.8 69,162 40, 659 58. 8 44, 12, 3, 5, 3, 2, 2, 73. 1 63. 5 60. 6 41.9 29.8 28. 9 17. 2 35, 23, 5, 8, 3, 6, 5, 33, 028 9, 210 1,907 4, 282 794 1, 550 660 94 . 40 . 37. 48 . 23. 23. 12. 24, 14, 2, 14, 3, 5, 3, 22, 789 6, 000 2, 075 5, 157 2, 183 1,455 1, 000 91.9 41.0 71.7 36. 1 60. 8 28. 3 26. 0 083 110 362 844 252 839 181 112 044 083 923 337 682 343 P a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n T o t a l -------------------- 58,824 1, 000 , 000 and o v e r ------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ------2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ----------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 000 ----------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 -----------25, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 000 --------------1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 --------------- 12,584 9, 8 33 6, 7 94 9, 811 8, 033 6, 347 5, 422 . ------- ------ __ ------- E d u c a t i o n a l ( n o n i n s tr u c t io n a l ) P u b li c he a l th and h o s p i t a l s P ub lic u t i l i t i e s 28, 251 11,550 3, 876 3, 869 3, 282 3, 168 1, 788 718 1 0 5 0 8 2 4 789 629 893 277 593 137 8 44 All other a ctivities P u b li c w e l f a r e 47. 9 27,676 19,764 91.8 39. 4 56.9 33. 5 39. 4 28. 2 13. 2 16, 040 7, 485 870 1, 340 893 736 312 16, 015 2, 327 436 332 371 271 12 71.4 346, 699 230,429 66. 5 99 . 8 31. 1 50. 1 24. 8 41.5 36. 8 3. 8 183, 599 51,825 16, 642 25, 346 25, 398 22, 073 21,816 178,038 20, 213 6, 985 8, 877 9, 133 4, 737 2, 446 97 . 0 39. 0 42. 0 35. 0 36. 0 21. 5 11.2 Table 7. Responses to ICMA and BLS surveys of public employee associations by city size, 1968-69 C it y s i z e ICM A 1 survey cities reporting pub lic em p loyee as sociations Table 8. Association membership by type of operation and city size, 1968-69 BLS s u r v e y T y p e of o p e r a t i o n 1 Usable Total responses 2 responses A s s o Association A sso C it ie s Cities ciations ciations m e m b e r s T o t a l ---------------------------------- 824 589 927 438 662 264, 366 1, 000, 00 0 and o v e r ------------------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 -------------------250, 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 00 0 ------------------------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 000 ------------------------50, 0 0 0 - 1 p0, 000 -------------------------2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 000 ---------------------------10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 00 0 -------------------- 4 17 22 54 148 227 352 - 4 14 19 47 119 162 224 “ 66 40 28 80 174 245 284 10 4 10 15 38 96 133 142 - 53 25 24 55 134 194 167 10 86, 876 59,763 17, 749 24, 8 22 19,507 16, 8 92 9, 259 29, 498 Intercity ........................................... . 1 I n t e r n a t i o n a l City M a n a g e m e n t A s s o c i a t i o n . 2 A l l s u b s e q u e n t t a b u l a t i o n s a r e b a s e d upon u s a b l e r e s p o n s e s . T h e B u r e a u did not a t te m p t to w e i g h t th e r e s p o n s e s to ac c o un t for a ll 1, 306 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s m a i l e d out b e c a u s e , to t h e B u r e a u ' s k n o w l e d g e , t h e s e 1 , 3 0 6 a s s o c i a t i o n s d e s ig n a t e d by c it y m a n a g e r s do not c o n s t i t u t e a c o m p l e t e l i s t of all s u c h o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Total R epresentation Legislative Both onl y on ly A s s o M em bers A s s o Members A s s o M embers A sso Members c ia t i o n s c ia t i o n s ciations ciations Ci ty s i z e T o t a l ___________________ 662 264, 366 37 19,930 210 20, 503 415 223, 933 1, 000 , 000 and o v e r ---------------500, 0 0 0 - 1 , 000 , 000 ---------------250, 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 -------------------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 -------------------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ----------------------2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 -----------------------10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 000 -----------------------I n t e r c i t y ----------------------------------- 53 25 24 55 134 194 167 10 86, 876 59,763 17, 749 24, 82 2 19,507 16, 89 2 9, 259 29, 498 2 1 2 3 3 8 16 2 14, 200 1,805 1, 159 411 46 5 419 1, 238 233 19 1 6 13 35 70 65 1 1, 260 17 3, 546 2, 753 3, 90 4 5, 701 3, 305 17 32 23 16 39 96 116 86 7 71,416 57, 941 13, 044 21, 658 15, 138 10,772 4, 716 29, 248 1 R e s p o n d e n t s a n s w e r e d " y e s " o r "no" to th e q u e s t i o n s : (1) D o e s yo ur o r g a n i z a t i o n p a r t i c i pa te in l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s (i. e. , s e e k i n g l e g i s l a t i v e s u p p o r t , s p o n s o r i n g l e g i s l a t i o n ) on b i ll s or p r o p o s a l s p e r t a i n i n g to pub lic e m p l o y e e s ? , and (2) D o e s y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n , as one of its p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n s , r e p r e s e n t pub lic e m p l o y e e s on w a g e s , w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s , o r g r e v a n c e s , e t c . , in d i r e c t d e a l i n g s o r m e e t i n g s w it h s u p e r v i s o r s o r o f f i c i a l s ? NO TE : S e e f o o tn o t e 2, t a b l e 7. Table 10. Percent distribution of union m em bership, estimated government union membership, and membership in municipal public employee associations, 1968-69 Table 9. M unicipal public employee associations by region, 1968-69 Members A ssociations P e r c e n t d i s t r i b u t io n of— Region 1 Number Percent Nu m be r Percent T o t a l ----------------------------- 662 100 . 0 264, 366 100 . 0 N e w E n g l a n d --------------------------M id dl e A t l a n t i c ---------------------E a s t N o r t h C e n t r a l -------------W e s t N o r t h C e n t r a l -------------Sout h A t l a n t i c ------------------------E a s t Sout h C e n t r a l --------------W e s t South C e n t r a l --------------M o u n t a i n --------------------------------P a c i f i c ------------------------------------- 70 140 141 17 24 16 13 24 217 10. 21. 21. 2. 3. 2. 2. 3. 32. 6, 008 101, 253 19, 642 1,610 9, 549 3, 611 2, 983 4, 302 115, 408 2. 2 38. 3 7. 4 .6 3. 6 1.4 5 1 2 5 6 4 0 6 8 1. 1 1.6 43. 6 1 T h e r e g i o n s in t h is stu dy i n c lu d e : New En gla nd — C o n n e ct i cu t, M a in e, M a s s a c h u s e t t s , N e w H a m p s h i r e , R h od e I sla nd , and V e r m o n t ; Middle A t l a n t i c — N e w J e r s e y , N e w Y or k, and P e n n s y l v a n i a ; E a s t No rt h C e n t r a l — I l l i n o i s , Indiana, M ic h i g a n , Ohio, and W i s c o n s i n ; We st N o r t h C e n t r a l — Iowa, K a n s a s , M in ne so ta , M i s s o u r i , N e b r a s k a , N or t h D ak ot a, and South D ak ota ; South A t l a n ti c ----D e l a w a r e , D i s t r i c t of C o l u m b i a , F l o r id a , G e o r g i a , M a r y la n d , N o r t h C a r o l in a , South C a r o l in a , V ir g in ia , and W es t V ir g in ia ; E a s t Sout h C e n t r a l ----A l a b a m a , K en tu ck y , M i s s i s s i p p i , and T e n n e s s e e ; We st South C e n t r a l ----A r k a n s a s , L o u i s i a n a , O kl a h o m a , and T e x a s ; Mou nt ain— A r i z o n a , C o l o r a d o , Idaho, M on ta na , N e w M e x i c o , N e v a d a , Utah, and Wyoming; a n d P a c i f i c — A l a s k a , C a l i f o r n i a , H a w a i i, O r e g o n , and W as hi ng to n . NOTE: See footnote 2, table 7. Region Un ion m e m b e r ship 196 8: All industries 1 An states __________________ New England____________________ M id dl e A t l a n t i c ---------------------------------------------------E a s t N o r t h C e n t r a l ---------------------------------------------W e s t N o r t h C e n t r a l ---------------------------------------------Sout h A t l a n t i c ------------------------------------------------------E a s t South C e n t r a l ---------------------------------------------W e s t South C e n t r a l ---------------------------------------------M o u n t a i n --------------------------------------------------------------P a c i f i c -----------------------------------------------------------------N o n c l a s s i f i a b l e ---------------------------------------------------- M embership E s t i m a t e d union in m u n i c i p a l m em b ersh ip public em ployee 1968: G o v e r n m e n t a ssociations, em p loyees 2 1968-69 3 100. 0 100. 0 5. 25. 26. 7. 8. 3. 4. 2. 14. 7. 22. 20. 7. 13. 4. 7. 3. 11. 4 2 3 2 5 9 6 6 9 1. 3 5 7 4 8 0 0 1 4 0 100. 0 2. 2 38. 3 7. 4 .6 3. 6 1.4 1. 2 1. 6 43. 6 3. 0 1 D e r i v e d f r o m data p r e s e n t e d in th e D i r e c t o r y of N a t i o n a l and I n t er na t io na l L a b o r Un ion s in the U n ite d S t a t e s , 1969 (B LS B u l l e t i n I66"5j! 2 D e r i v e d f r o m dat a p r e s e n t e d in H a r r y P. Coh an y and L u c r e t i a M. D e w e y "Union M e m b e r s h i p A m o n g G o v e r n m e n t E m p l o y e e s , " Mo nt hly L a b o r R e v i e w , Ju ly 1970. 3 S e e fo o tn o t e 2, t a b l e 7. NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. Table 11. Municipal public employee associations by city size and city type, 1968-69 Table 12. M unicipal public employee associations by occupational composition, 1968-69 City typ e City siz e Total As so cia tions T o t a l ........................................... .......... 1, 0 0 0 , 0 00 and o v e r 50 0, 00 0 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 - - ................... 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 00 ....................................... 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ....................................... 50 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 .......................................... 2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 ............................................... 10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 ............................................... I n t e r c i t y ________ ____ _________________ 6 62 53 25 24 55 134 194 167 10 M embers St and ar d m e tr o p o l i ta n statistics 1 areas 1 As s o c i a M embers t io n s 264,366 533 53 25 24 55 134 139 99 4 86,876 59,763 17,749 24,822 19,507 16,892 9,259 29,498 234,968 129 86,876 59, 763 17, 749 24,822 19,507 11,649 5, 270 9, 332 29,398 - - - - - 55 68 6 - 5, 243 3, 989 20,166 1 T o be d e f in e d a s a s t a n d a r d m e t r o p o l i t a n s t a t i s t i c a l a r e a , a c it y m u s t (1) h a v e 5 0 , 0 0 0 o r m o r e i n h a b i t a n t s o r , (2) be c o n t i g u o u s t o a n o t h e r c i t y of no f e w e r tha n 1 5 , 0 0 0 in h a b i ta n t s , and f o r m w it h that c i t y , f o r g e n e r a l e c o n o m i c and s o c i a l p u r p o s e s , a s in g le c o m m u n i t y with a c o m b i n e d p o p u la t io n of 50, 0 0 0 . NOTE: As s o c ia tions O ccupational co m p o sitio n No nm et re apol ita n are a s A sso cia M embers tions S e e f o o tn o t e 2, t a b l e 7. M embers Percent T o t a l .... ...................................... .................................... 662 264,366 100. 0 P o l i c e m e n or f i r e m e n ................... _ ... P r o f e s s i o n a l , t e c h n i c a l and c l e r i c a l on ly ______________________________________ B l u e - c o l l a r or m a n u a l c r a f t s o n l y ............................. P o lic e m e n or f ir e m e n , p r o f e s s io n a l, t e c h n i c a l , c l e r i c a l , b l u e - c o l l a r or m a n u a l c r a f t s ______ _______ _____ ________ ______ P ro fessio n a l, techn ical, cle r ica l, p o l i c e m e n or f i r e m e n __________________________ P r o fessio n a l, techn ical, c le r ica l, b l u e - c o l l a r o r m a n u a l c r a f t s __________________ P o l i c e m e n or f i r e m e n , b l u e - c o l l a r or m a n u a l c r a f t s ------------------------------ -------------- -------- 347 106,967 40. 4 78 18 20,118 2,478 7. 6 0. 9 110 69,240 26. 1 56 7, 333 2. 7 48 56,959 21. 5 5 1, 271 (M T o t a l 2 .............................................................................. 662 264,366 100. 0 P o l i c e m e n and f i r e m e n __________________________ P r o f e s s i o n a l , t e c h n i c a l , and c l e r i c a l .................. B l u e - c o l l a r or m a n u a l c r a f t s ___________________ 518 292 181 124,282 80 , 916 59, 168 47. 0 30. 6 22. 3 1 L e s s t ha n 0. 5 p e r c e n t . 2 N o n a d d i ti v e . N O TE : S e e f o o tn o t e 2, t a b le 7. Table 13. Municipal public employee associations by jurisdiction, 1968-69 Jurisd iction Associations M em bership T o t a l .................. ........................... ......................................... — _ 662 264,366 C i t y o n l y ___-------- --------------- ----------------------------------- - -----C i t y an d s t a t e .................... ......................... .............................. .......... C i t y an d c ou nt y ----------------------- ------------------- --------------------C i t y , s t a t e , c o u n t y ____________ ______ ____ ______________ C i t y , s c h o o l d i s t r i c t ________ ___________ _____ ____________ C i t y , s p e c i a l d i s t r i c t s 12 ............. ........................ .......................... . C i t y an d p r i v a t e __________________________________________ C i t y , c o u n t y , s c h o o l d i s t r i c t -----------------------------------------C i t y , s t a t e , p r i v a t e ........................................... .............................. C i t y , co u n t y , s p e c i a l d i s t r i c t s 1 -------- -------------------------C i t y , s t a t e , c o u n t y , s c h o o l d i s t r i c t .................... ................... City, county, sc h o o l d i s t r i c t , s p e c ia l d i s t r i c t s 1 _______________________________________________ C i t y , s t a t e , c o u n t y , p r i v a t e ------- ----------------------------------C i t y , s t a t e , co u n t y , s p e c i a l d i s t r i c t s 1------------------------ 580 2 16 18 18 11 1 1 2 1 1 179,425 312 5, 069 7, 154 39,709 6, 683 27 3,832 94 280 1, 310 1 1 9 18,000 181 2, 290 T o t a l 2 ................................................. - .......................................... 662 264,366 C o u n t y ____________________________________________________ S c h o o l d i s t r i c t --------------------- -------------------------------------------S p e c i a l d i s t r i c t s 1_________________________________________ S t a te _________ _____________________ _______- ............... ............... P r i v a t e ------- ------ -------------------------------------------- --------- ------ ----- 662 48 21 22 33 4 206,529 36,471 11,824 6,967 2, 506 69 1 Includes m e m b e r s working for port, F e d e r a l Governm ent m e m b e r s . 2 Nonadditive. NOTE: Sefe footnote 2, table 7. w ater, and t r a n s i t a u t h o r i t i e s and Table 14. Municipal public employee association membership by civil service codes or regulations, 1968-69 P e r c e n t c o v e r e d by c i v i l s e r v i c e c o d e s or r e g u l a t i o n s M embers covered M embers not c o v e r e d T o t a l ...... ................................ ........ ................................. 662 23 1 , 600 32,766 100 p e r c e n t .............................................................................. 90 and u n d er 100 p e r c e n t .................. .............................. 80 and un d er 90 p e r c e n t .................... .............................. 70 and u n d er 80 p e r c e n t _________________________ 50 and u n d er 70 p e r c e n t _____________________ ____ U n d e r 50 p e r c e n t _________________________________ N o n e c o v e r e d o r r e p o r t e d _______________________ 429 34 14 12 13 9 151 190,248 11, 733 23 , 716 3,936 968 999 " 811 4, 317 1, 388 623 2, 760 22,867 N O TE : some A sso cia tio n s S e e f o o tn o t e 2, t a b l e 7. Table 15. Municipal public employee associations by founding dates and city size, 1968-69 F o un di ng d a t e s City s i z e Tot al 18 90 -9 9 19 00 -0 9 19 10 -1 9 1 9 20 -2 9 1930 -39 194 0- 49 1950- 59 196 0- 69 Not reported --------------------------------- 662 8 15 23 27 84 104 136 215 50 1, 000 , 0 00 and o v e r --------------------500, 00 0- 1, 000, 000 --------------------250, 0 00 - 5 0 0 , 000 ------------------------100, 0 0 0- 25 0, 000 ------------------------50, 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 000 ---------------------------25, 0 0 0 -5 0, 000 ----------------------------10, 0 0 0- 25 , 000 ----------------------------I n t e r c i t y ---------------------------------------- 53 25 24 55 134 194 167 10 2 1 2 5 2 2 _ - 1 2 1 1 4 3 - - 1 “ 1 1 1 3 8 6 3 " 4 3 4 10 17 29 15 2 8 2 6 7 22 30 26 3 11 2 3 12 34 45 28 1 22 7 7 14 31 59 74 1 1 2 3 1 10 17 14 2 Total NO TE : _ 6 6 4 7 " Se e f o ot no t e 2, ta b le 7. Table 16. M embership growth of municipal public employee associations by region, 1962-68 Region As sociat io n s 1968 m em bers 1962 m em bers M e m b e r sh ip growth 19 62-68 M embers T o t a l -------------------- 460 241, 665 New E n g la nd ---------------Middle A t l a n t i c ------------E a s t N o r t h C e n t r a l -----W est N o r th C e n t r a l ----South A t l a n t i c --------------Ea st South C e n t r a l -----W est South C e n t r a l -----M o u n t a i n ----------------------P a c i f i c --------------------------- 32 106 86 13 18 15 9 18 163 4, 94, 16, 1, 8, 3, 2, 3, 107, NO TE: S e e fo o tn o t e 2, ta b le 7. 032 442 293 346 641 560 320 567 464 187, 843 3, 67, 13, 1, 6, 1, 1, 2, 90, 107 338 893 010 022 8 90 314 606 663 Percent 53, 822 28. 7 925 27, 104 2, 400 336 2, 619 1, 670 1, 006 961 16, 801 29. 40. 17. 33. 43. 88. 80. 36. 18. 8 3 3 3 5 4 7 9 5 Table 17. Affiliations of municipal public employee associations by type of operation, 1968-69 Typ e of o p e r a t i o n Total A ffiliation A ssocia tio ns A s s o c ia t i o n s reporting affiliati on R e p r e s e n t a t i o n onl y L e g i s l a t i v e only M embers 662 264, 366 A sso cia tions A ssocia t io n s M embers 37 19,930 210 20, 503 M embers Bo th A ssociaMember s ____UQOS____ 415 223, 933 397 169, 662 32 8, 206 68 6, 581 297 154, 87 5 P o l i c e a f f i l i a t i o n s ----------------------F r a t e r n a l O r d e r of P o l i c e ( F O P ) ------------------------------------P o lic e benevolent a s s o c ia t i o n s -------------------------------------St ate p o l i c e a s s o c i a t i o n s ------O th e r p o l i c e a s s o c i a t i o n s 1 -----------------------------------St at e f i r e m e n a f f i l i a t i o n s ----------A f f i l i a t i o n s of s ta t e , county, and m u n i c i p a l e m p l o y e e s ---------S t a t e w id e a s s o c i a t i o n s ----------I n t r a s t a t e a s s o c i a t i o n s ---------A f f i l i a t i o n s of n u r s e s ----------------L icen sed P ractical Nurses — A m erican Nu rses A sso cia t i o n --------------- --------------------O th e r o c c u p a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t i o n s 2— ------------------------------------- 259 89, 283 30 8, 047 20 893 209 80, 343 113 25, 410 19 2, 330 2 84 92 22, 996 20 113 2, 808 47, 682 1 8 60 3, 784 1 14 116 501 18 91 2, 63 2 43, 397 13 22 13, 383 1, 388 2 2 1, 873 159 3 10 192 561 8 10 11, 318 668 91 76 15 11 1 61, 48, 12, 4, 3, 062 149 913 651 000 - - 27 20 7 5 - 4, 504 2, 998 1, 506 325 - 64 56 8 6 1 56, 45, 11, 4, 3, 1, 651 - - 5 325 5 1, 326 14 13, 278 - ' 6 298 8 12, 98 0 No a f f i l i a t i o n or none r e p o r t e d ------- 265 94, 70 4 5 11, 724 142 13, 922 118 69, 058 — 10 558 151 407 326 000 1 I n c lu d e s 11 i n t r a s t a t e p o l i c e a s s o c i a t i o n s and 2 a s s o c i a t i o n s a f f i l i a t e d onl y w it h the I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e of P o l i c e A s s o c i a t i o n s (IC PA ). 10 a d di tio na l a s s o c i a t i o n s r e p o r t e d a f f i l i a t i o n s w i t h the ICP A and a l s o w i t h a S t a te w id e a s s o c i a t i o n i n c lu d e d un d er St ate p o l i c e a s s o c i a t i o n s . 2 A l l a f f i l i a t i o n s in c lu d e d a r e at the l o c a l , r e g i o n a l , or s ta t e l e v e l and a r e c o n c e r n e d w it h s p e c i f i c o c c u p a t i o n s s u c h a s p u b li c s c h o o l c u s t o d i a n s and e du c a t io n a l s e c r e t a r i e s . A l s o in c lu d e d w e r e 2 a s s o c i a t i o n s w h i c h r e p o r t e d m u l t i p l e a f f i l i a t i o n s . NO TE : S e e fo o tn o te 2, table 7. Table 18. Annual dues for municipal public employee associations by type of operation, 1968-69 Typ e of o p e r a t i o n Total L e g i s l a t i v e o nl y An n u a l d u e s A ssocia tions M embers R e p r e s e n t a t i o n onl y A sso cia t io n s M embers A sso cia t io n s M embers T o t a l ---------------------------------------- 662 264, 366 37 19, 930 210 20, 503 Total reporting dues inform ation— 600 248, 449 36 8. 9 30 175 18. L e s s th a n $ 5 . 0 0 --------------------------$ 5 . 0 0 - $ 9 . 9 9 --------------------------------$ 1 0 . 0 0 - $ 1 4 . 9 9 -----------------------------$ 1 5 . 0 0 - $ 1 9 . 9 9 -----------------------------$ 2 0 . 0 0 - $ 2 4 . 9 9 -----------------------------$ 2 5 . 0 0 - $ 2 9 . 9 9 -----------------------------$ 3 0 . 0 0 - $ 3 9 . 9 9 -----------------------------$ 40. 0 0 - $ 4 9 . 9 9 -----------------------------$ 5 0 . 0 0 and o v e r --------------------------- 63 132 173 37 56 33 38 15 53 569 8 92 675 755 644 182 063 254 4 65 4 14 10 2 5 670 1, 146 488 1, 819 1, 607 2, 3, 7, 1, - - 33 35 52 8 14 6 10 3 14 No d u e s or no ne r e p o r t e d ---------------- 62 15, 867 1 11,000 35 NOTE: See footnote 2, table 7, 5, 17, 42, 28, 41, 25, 20, 9, 57, - 1 - - 3, 200 - Bo th A sso cia t io n s M embers 415 223, 933 IQ&___ 389 221.361 450 578 481 940 767 531 511 80 870 26 83 111 27 37 27 27 12 39 2, 449 13, 168 34, 706 24, 996 39,270 24, 651 16, 352 9, 174 56, 595 2, 295 26 2, 572 Table 19. Type of recognition for municipal public employee associations by city size, 1968-69 Ty p e of r e c o g n i t i o n Tot al Ci ty s i z e No r e p l y 1 For m a l Informal A ssocia tions M embers As s o c i a tio ns T o t a l __________________________ 662 264,366 393 171, 352 224 72,370 45 20, 644 1, 000, 000 and o v e r _________________ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 000 ________________ 2 50, 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 ___________________ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 __________________ 50,000-100,000 ___________________ 2 5 , 0 0 0 —50, 000 ____________________ 10,000-25,000 ___________________ I n t e r c i t y ------------------------------------------- 53 25 24 55 134 194 167 10 86,876 59, 763 17,749 24,822 19,507 16,892 9, 259 29,498 43 18 12 32 87 102 94 5 62,652 37,088 5, 424 15,929 13,270 8, 591 4, 633 23, 765 7 6 10 20 42 82 54 3 10,015 20, 870 11, 166 8, 482 5, 391 7, 825 3, 121 5, 500 3 1 2 3 5 10 19 2 14, 209 1, 805 1, 159 411 846 476 1, 505 233 M embers A sso cia t io n s 1 I nc lu de d 37 a s s o c i a t i o n s w it h 19, 9 30 m e m b e r s that did not e n g a g e in e m p l o y e e t io n s with 714 m e m b e r s that f a il e d to r e p ly . NO TE : Se e f oot no te 2, Members A sso cia t io ns Members r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s and 8 a s s o c i a ta b le 7. Table 20. Type of documents used to record the results of negotiations by type of recognition, 1968-69 Typ e of r e c o g n i t i o n T nfa 1 Document F ormal Inform al A ssocia tio ns M embers A sso cia t io ns -------------------------------------- 662 264,366 393 171,352 224 72, 370 A s s o c i a t i o n r e p o r ti n g : 1 N e g o t ia t i o n s r e s u l t s r e c o r d e d __ W rit ten a g r e e m e n t ______________ M e m o r a n d a of u n d e r s t a n d i n g ___ O r d in a n c e s ______________________ P e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s __________ Oth er d o c u m e n t s 2 _______________ No d o c u m e n t r e p o r t e d _________ No r e c o g n i t i o n r e p o r t e d 3_______ 531 216 123 186 164 59 86 45 21 3, 321 101, 752 39,950 115,066 145, 734 69, 690 30, 401 20, 644 385 202 73 1 16 108 37 8 170, 483 99, 061 32,286 82,100 117,562 61, 932 869 146 14 50 70 56 22 78 42,838 2, 691 7, 664 32,966 28, 172 7, 758 29,532 T ot a l - M embers As s o c i a tio ns - M embers No r e c o g n i t i o n reported As s o c ia tio ns 45 _ _ _ _ 45 M embers 20, 644 _ _ _ 20, 644 1 No n a dd iti v e . Many a s s o c i a t i o n s r e p o r t e d m o r e than 1 t ype of d o c u m e n t . ( S e e a p p e n d ix t a b le A- 19 fo r a d d i t iv e d i s tri but io n. ) 2 P r i n c i p a l a m o n g "Other" w e r e : M in ut e s of m e e t i n g s w i t h m a y o r s and c i t y c o u n c i ls ; c it y c o u n c i l p o l i c y s t a t e m e n t s ; c it y p o l i c y m a n u a l s , and c iv i l s e r v i c e r u l e s . 3 Se e fo o tn o te 1, table 19. NOTE: See footnote 2, table 7. Table 21. Frequency of meetings by type of recognition, 1968-69 Table 22. Distribution of associations and membership by issues discussed, 1968-69 Type of r e c o g n i t i o n Total No r e p l y 1 M eeting frequ en cy Formal A ssoci ations Total _ ______ . 662 A s s o c ia tio n s reporting m e e t i n g f r e q u e n c y .................................. 611 Members 264,366 242,680 A ssocia t io n s Inform al A ssoci ations M embers M embers T o t a l ........ 393 390 171,352 224 72,370 A sso c ia tio n s reporting i s s u e s d i s c u s s e d __________________________ 170,570 221 72 , 110 - - 79 522 10 53, 920 167,967 20,793 58 324 8 45,765 105,176 19,629 21 198 2 8 , 155 6 2 , 791 1, 164 - - No r e p l y ............................................................ 51 21,686 3 782 3 260 45 20,644 _ Pay m a tt e r s W or ki ng c o n d i t i o n s Fringe benefits .................... .. G rievance procedures Job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ................ P r o m o tio n s or prom otion policy _ _ D i s c h a r g e s ___________ _____ _____ Oth er m a t t e r s 1 ................................... _ 1 S e e f o o t n o t e 1, t a b l e 19. S e e f o o t n o t e 2, t a b l e 7. ................ .............. No r e p l y 2 _ .... ................................... M embers 662 264,366 20,644 45 R e g u l a r l y ................................ ................. I r r e g u l a r l y .................... ........................ R e g u l a r l y and i r r e g u l a r l y _____ NOTE: A ssociations Issu es discussed A ssociations M embers 619 243,060 604 537 550 49 2 41 3 239,928 234,420 220,230 21 3, 943 184,418 332 293 24 160,579 152,441 8, 036 43 21, 306 1 Includes d is c r im in a tio n , le g is la tio n , civil s e r v ic e s y s t e m s , d i s c i p l i n a r y t r i a l s , an d c i v i l i a n r e v i e w h e a r i n g s , 2 I n c l u d e s 37 a s s o c i a t i o n s w it h 1 9 , 9 3 0 m e m b e r s that did not e n g a g e in e m p l o y e e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s and 6 a s s o c i a t i o n s wi th 1 , 3 7 6 m e m b e r s that f a il e d to l i s t issu e s discu ssed. N O TE : S e e f o o tn o t e 2, t a b l e 7. Table 23. Role of municipal public employee associations in grievance cases by type of recognition, 1968-69 T y p e of r e c o g n i t i o n No r e c o g n i t i o n reported 1 Total Role F ormal A ssociations T o t a l .... .......... ................................................... ............. M embers As sociations Inform al M ember s A ssoci ations Members 662 264,366 393 171,352 224 72,370 583 237,618 376 167,065 207 70,553 R e p r e s e n t a g g r i e v e d ____ _____________________ A c t a s an o b s e r v e r ___________________________ B e n o t i f i e d of o u t c o m e ________________________ No r o l e .... ..... _ _ ........ 478 61 8 36 211,458 17,610 844 7, 706 328 31 4 13 162,253 3, 576 392 844 150 30 4 23 49,205 14,034 452 6,862 No r e s p o n s e to g r i e v a n c e q u e s t i o n ______________ No r e c o g n i t i o n r e p o r t e d __________________________ 34 45 6, 104 20,644 17 - 4 , 287 17 “ 1,817 A s s o c ia t i o n s r eporting grie van c e role S e e f o o t n o t e 1, t a b le 19. ......... A ssociations 45 M embers 20,644 _ _ _ _ - - _ 45 _ 20,644 Appendix A. Supplemental tables A-l through A-18, employee organization by government activity and city size, 1968-69. A-19 through A-21, type of documents used to record results of negotiations by type of recognition and city size, 1968-69. 21 Table A-l. Cities with employees represented by the International Association of Fire Fighters (AFL-CIO), by government activity, 1968-69 Total c ities A ctivity reporting Total c it i e s reporting u n i o n s or Fire P olice IAFF associ protection protection ations City s i z e T o t a l s ----------------------------------------------------------- 1,033 579 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 or m o r e _______________________________ 500 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . . ________ _____________________ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ............................................................. 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ................................................................... 50, 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 000 ................................ ................................... 2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 .................................................. ..................... 1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 . . ; ........... ..................................... ................... 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 4 18 20 51 119 169 198 1 578 4 18 20 51 119 169 197 - 1 Table A-2. Cities with employees represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (A FL- C IO ), by activity, 1968-69 Total c ities r e p o r t i n g To ta l c i t i e s r e p o r ti n g u n i o n s or P olice AFSCME associ protection a t io n s City s iz e Totals 1 , 0 0 0 , 000 an d o v e r 500 .0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . 250.0005 0 0 , 0 0 0 ... 100, 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 000 ... 50 .0 0 0 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 __ 25.0005 0 , 0 0 0 __ 10.00025 , 0 0 0 .... NOTE: N onadditive. A ctivity F ire protection P u b li c works P ublic utilities 300 152 4 10 12 23 67 88 96 3 7 8 16 30 42 46 1,033 344 68 18 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 4 14 1? 28 71 99 115 2 3 8 12 20 23 1 2 - 2 4 9 P u b li c E d u c a ti o n P a r k s and h e a l th and (n o n i n recreation h o s p i t a l s s t r u c t io n a l) P u b li c w elfare A l l ot he r activities 47 50 190 26 154 3 6 5 6 9 10 8 1 3 1 8 9 11 17 4 8 10 21 45 63 39 2 3 2 6 5 8 " 4 9 11 21 34 40 35 M an y c i t i e s r e p o r t e d u n i o n s in m o r e than 1 a c t i v i t y . Table A-3. Cities with employees represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Ind.), by activity, 1968-69 Total c ities reporting Total c ities r e p o r ti n g un i o n s or Police IBT associ protection a t io n s City siz e T o t a l s ______________________________________ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 or m o r e _______________________________ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ..................................... ................. ........ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 _______ ________ ____ ____ ________ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ____________ ______________ _____ 50, 0 0 0 - 100, 0 0 0 _________ _________ _____ __ ________ 2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 ..................................................... .................... 1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 .......................................................................... NOTE: N onadditive. 1,033 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 98 2 8 7 12 14 24 31 14 1 - 1 3 9 M an y c i t i e s r e p o r t e d un i o n s in m o r e than 1 ac ti v i ty , A ctivity Fire protection 6 1 1 2 2 P u b li c works 74 2 7 6 9 11 16 23 P u b li c utilities 27 2 4 1 4 3 5 8 P u b li c E d u c a ti o n P a r k s and h e a l th and ( no ni nrecreation h o s p i t a l s s t r u c t io n a l) 8 2 2 1 2 1 4 30 _ 1 2 1 4 3 6 5 5 7 P u b li c w elfare A l l ot h e r activities 4 25 1 2 1 2 3 2 4 4 4 6 Table A-4. Cities with employees represented by Building Trades Unions, by activity, 1968-69 Total cities r e p o r ti n g unions o r as s o c ia tions City s i z e T o ta l cities r e p o r ti n g bu ild ing trades un io ns A c t iv i t y Fire protection Pub lic works P ub lic utilities Pub lic h e a l th and hospitals E d u c a ti o n Parks (n on in and structional) recr e ation P ub lic w elfare All ot h e r activities T o t a l ---------------------------------------- 1, 033 55 1 42 36 4 5 17 1 19 1 , 0 0 0 , 000 o r m o r e ------------------------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ------------------------2 50 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ----------------- -----------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 -----------------------------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 -------------------------------2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 ---------------------------------1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 ---------------------------------- 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 3 6 8 9 8 3 18 _ 3 6 7 7 7 1 11 1 6 5 3 3 2 16 2 2 3 5 3 2 1 - 1 2 1 1 - - - - - - - 3 3 4 4 2 2 1 N O TE : N o n ad di ti ve . - 1 - - 4 Many c i t i e s r e p o r t e d u ni on s in m o r e than 1 a c t i v i t y . Table A-5. Cities with employees represented by the Laborers’ International Union of North America (A FL- C IO ), by activity, 1968-69 To ta l cities re po rti ng unions or as s o c i a tions City s i z e To ta l cities r e p o r ti n g LIU NA T o t a l ---------------------------------------- 1,033 40 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 or m o r e -------------------------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 -------------------------2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 -----------------------------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 -----------------------------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 _____________________ 2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 ______________________ 1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 ______________________ 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 1 7 2 5 2 9 14 NOTE: Nonadditive. A c t iv i t y Police protection Fire p rotection Pub lic works P ub lic utilities 12 2 1 34 . _ - - . 6 2 3 1 8 14 - - - 1 1 - 1 Many cities reported unions in more than 1 activity. Pub lic h e a l th and hospitals 3 Ed u c a ti o n Parks (non inand structional) re cr e a tio n 3 11 2 _ _ 1 3 2 2 _ 4 . 4 1 _ 1 2 4 2 _ 1 _ _ Al l other activities 12 1 3 1 1 _ 1 5 Table A-6. Cities with employees represented by the Service Employees International Union (AFL-CIO), by activity, 1968-69 C it y s i z e T ota l Total cities c it i e s reporting re po rting un i o n s or SEIU as sociation s T o t a l s ----------------- 1, 033 37 1 , 0 0 0 , 000 o r m o r e -----5 00, 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 00, 0 00 -----2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ---------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ---------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ------------25, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 00 -------------10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 00 -------------- 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 3 8 1 5 5 7 8 N O TE : Nonadditive. A ctivity Police p r o t e c t io n Fire protection P u b li c h e a l t h and hospitals 27 13 8 6 15 1 4 - - - - 3 2 2 3 - 4 2 2 2 1 - - 3 7 3 3 2 - - - - - 2 4 4 7 2 3 1 4 1 - - 1 1 A ll other activities P u b li c utilities 2 - Parks Education and ( no ni nstructional) r e c r e a t io n Pu b li c works . 1 1 2 1 1 - - 2 1 P u b li c welfare 1 _ - 1 " 16 3 3 Many c i t i e s r e p o r t e d un io ns in m o r e t han 1 a c t i v i t y . Table A-7. Cities with employees represented by other unions, by activity, 1968-69 C it y s i z e T o ta l cities reporting unions or as s o c i a t i o n s Total cities r e p o r ti n g oth er un io ns T o t a l s ----------------- 1, 033 129 1, 0 00, 000 o r m o r e -----500, 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 000 -----2 50, 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 ---------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ---------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ----------25, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 00 -------------10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 000 -------------- 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 3 6 2 24 20 38 36 NOTE: Nonadditive A c t iv i t y Pu b li c w elfare All ot h e r activities 23 5 37 2 2 1 2 - - - 3 3 2 - - 2 - * 1 5 2 5 7 2 4 1 9 6 5 10 Parks Education (n o n i n and structional) r e c r e a tio n Police p r o t e c t io n Fire protection Pu b li c works P u b li c u tilities P u b li c h e a l th and hospitals 21 17 49 59 11 7 3 3 1 8 4 13 17 2 3 1 9 7 20 17 2 3 1 3 - 1 2 - - - 3 2 4 6 3 7 10 Many cities reported unions in more than 1 activity - - - Table A-8. Cities with employees represented by the Fraternal Order of Police, by activity, 1968-69 Total cities reporting Total c it ie s unions or reporting Police a ssoci FOP protection ations City s i z e T o t a l _______________________________________ No n ad di tiv e. P u b li c h e a l t h and hospitals A l l ot he r activities 1,033 375 373 2 1 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 2 8 10 27 65 96 167 2 8 10 27 65 94 167 2 - 1 - - 1 “ 1 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 or m o r e _______________________________ 500 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ......... .................. ........ .......................... 25 0, 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . ................. ................................................ i o o , 000- 2 5 0 , o o a ............................................................ . 50, 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 000 ........... ..................................................... . 2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 .......................................................... ............. 10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 .................. ................................................. . NO TE : Activity Fire protection 2 S o m e c i t i e s r e p o r t e d m o r e t ha n 1 a c t i v i t y . Table A-9. Cities with employees represented by other associations, by activity, 1968-69 'Total c i t i e s T o t a l c i t i e s reporting r e p o r ti n g other un i o n s or P olice associ associ protection ations a t io ns City siz e A ctivity Fire protection P u b li c works P u b li c u tilities E d u c a ti on P u b li c P a r k s and h e a l t h and (n o ni nrecreation h o s p i t a l s s t r u c t io n a l) Pu b li c welfare A l l othe r activities T o t a l ________________________________________ 1, 033 525 420 224 226 114 65 39 193 35 230 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 o r m o r e _______________________________ 50 0, 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ........ .................................................... . 250,000-500,000 ____ ________ _________________ 100, 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 _______ _____________ _____ _____ 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 000 ____ ___________________ ________ 25, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 . . _____ ___________ ______ ______ ____ 10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 000 ___________ ___________ ____________ 4 19 23 61 171 287 4 68 3 11 17 38 95 151 210 2 11 11 26 72 126 172 1 5 7 15 37 68 91 3 6 9 15 49 67 77 1 4 8 13 23 29 36 3 3 7 18 12 14 8 1 3 1 9 7 10 8 3 5 9 18 49 57 52 1 1 1 5 12 10 5 3 5 10 19 53 67 73 NOTE: Nonadditive. Many cities reported more than 1 activity. Table A-10. Membership affiliation of police protection employees, 1968-69 C ities reporting unions or associa tions (A) City siz e C ities reporting organized p o l ic e protection em p loyees _____ £1 ___ Affiliation 1 AFSCME C ities Percent of ___ LAI . Percent of (B) T o t a l --------------------------------------- 1,033 854 68 7 8 1, 00 0, 00 0 and o v e r ------------------------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 00 0 -------------------------Z 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 -----------------------------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 00 0 -----------------------------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 000 ------------------------------25, 000 50, 000 --------- ------------- — 10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 00 0 --------------------------------- 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 4 17 21 58 150 239 365 2 3 8 12 20 23 11 13 13 7 7 5 12 14 14 8 8 6 Cities 2 _ - 1 _ 1 IA FF T o t a l -----------------------------------------1, 00 0 , 00 0 and o v e r ---------------------------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 00 0, 00 0 ---------------------------- — 25 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 -------------------------------- — 100, 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 000 - - -------------------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 000 ---------------------------------- — 2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 000 -----------------------------------1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 ------------------------------------ — — -------— ------ LI UN A SEIU Percent of (A) (2) _ _ 2 Percent of (B) 2 (2) . _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ 1 1 _ _ _ 1 _ (2) (2) - _ (2) (2) O th e r u ni on s 1 (2) (2) 1 - - (2) (2) IBT Percent of (B) (2) 2 _ _ _ C ities Percent of (A) (2) _ C ities 14 Percent of (A) Percent of (B) 1 2 _ 1 4 _ _ 5 1 3 9 1 1 2 1 1 2 _ FOP _ _ O th e r a s s o c i a t i o n s 21 2 2 373 36 44 429 42 50 1 2 4 7 7 5 3 2 2 1 6 3 3 3 2 2 8 10 27 65 94 167 50 42 43 44 38 33 36 50 47 48 47 43 39 46 2 11 11 27 80 126 172 50 58 48 44 47 44 37 50 65 52 47 53 53 47 1 Un io n a b b r e v i a t i o n s a r e a s f o l l o w s : A F S C M E — A m e r i c a n F e d e r a t i o n of St a te , Cou nty and M u n i c ip a l E m p l o y e e s ; SEIU— S e r v i c e E m p l o y e e s I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union; LI U NA — L a b o r e r s ' I n t e r n a t i o n a l Un io n of N o r t h A m e r i c a ; I B T — I n t e r n a t i o n a l B r o t h e r h o o d of T e a m s t e r s ; I A F F — I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of F i r e F i g h t e r s ; and F O P — F r a t e r n a l O r d e r of P o l i c e . 2 L e s s th an 0. 5 p e r c e n t . NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization. Table A-l 1. Membership affiliation of fire protection employees, 1968-69 Affiliation 1 u ni o ns or as s o c i a t io n s J A ) ___ City s iz e organized fir e protection em p loyees . -IB) AF SCM E Percent C it ie s of _____( A i _ _ Cities Percent Percent of of (B) _ _(A),_ „ ----------- 1, 033 787 18 2 2 1 (1 2) 1, 000 , 000 and o v e r ____ 50 0, 0 0 0 - 1 , 00 0 , 0 0 0 _____ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 ______ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 _____ 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 000 _______ ?.5, 000- 5 0 , nnn . _ . 10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 00 0 _________ 4 19 23 61 171 287 4 68 4 19 23 61 155 235 290 1 2 . 2 4 9 5 9 _ 1 1 2 5 9 _ 1 2 3 _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ (2 ) T o t a l ------ LIU NA SEIU Percent of (B) (2 ) . _ _ _ (2 ) Cities 1 _ _ _ _ 1 IAFF To ta l _ ....... 1 , 000 , 00 0 and nvt>r ....... 5 00 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 000 , 00 0 . . ... 2 5 0.000-500.000 i on, 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , non 50, 00 0 - 1 00, 00 0 _. .. _ 2 5 , 0 0 0 —5 0 , 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 ............................................. . ... ___ ________ . .................................................... _ 1 S e e fo o tn o t e 1, t a b le A - 10. 2 L e s s th an 0. 5 p e r c e n t . NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization. Percent of (A) (2 ) B u il d in g T r a d e s Percent of (B) _ (2 ) C ities 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (2 ) (2 ) 1 2 2 _ _ _ _ O th e r un io ns 578 56 73 4 18 20 51 119 169 197 100 95 87 84 70 59 42 100 95 87 84 77 72 68 17 2 Percent of (A) IBT Percent of (B) (2 ) (2 ) 2 11 11 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 6 Percent of (B) 1 1 _ _ 1 4 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 (2 ) (2 ) 1 2 2 1 1 1 _ _ _ FOP 2 2 4 7 C i t ie s Percent of (A) (2 ) _ (2 ) Oth er a s s o c i a t i o n s — )__ . A(2 1 I I " 2 1 1 232 22 29 1 5 7 16 43 68 92 25 26 30 26 25 24 20 25 26 30 26 28 29 32 Table A-12. Membership affiliation of public works employees, 1968-69 C ities reporting unions or associa tions (A) City s iz e C ities reporting organized public works em p loyees (B) A ffiliation 1 AFSCME Cities LIU NA SEIU Percent of (A) Percent of (B) Percent of (A) C ities Percent of (B) C ities Bu il d in g T r a d e s Percent of (A) Percent of (B) Percent of (A) C ities Percent of (B) T o t a l ________________ 1,033 621 300 29 48 27 3 4 34 3 5 42 4 7 1 , DOf), 000 and nvpr 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 -1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 _________ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 _________ 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 __________ 2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 ____________ 10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 ......................... 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 4 17 16 49 121 182 232 4 10 12 23 67 88 96 100 53 70 38 39 31 21 100 59 75 78 55 48 41 3 7 2 4 4 7 75 37 3 2 1 1 75 41 4 3 2 3 6 2 3 1 8 14 32 9 5 1 3 3 35 13 6 1 4 6 3 6 7 7 7 1 11 75 32 30 11 4 (2 ) 2 75 35 44 14 6 1 5 T o t a l ----- ---------------1 , 0 0 0 , 000 and o v e r ^ 0 0 ,0 0 0 -1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ? R0 , 0 0 0 —50 0, 00 0 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 7 = 1 0 ,0 0 0 =10 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 000 __________ 2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 ......................... 1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 _ ....................... _ _ _____ ______ ___________ _________ .................................... ________ __ _ . __ 1 S e e f o o tn o t e 1, t a b le A - 10. 2 L e s s t ha n 0. 5 p e r c e n t . NOTE: Nonadditive. __ __ __ ___ _ __ __________________ _ _____ ................... _ ___ ______ . Some cities reported more than 1 organization. O ther a s s o c i a t i o n s Oth er u n i o n s IBT 75 7 12 48 5 8 228 22 37 2 8 6 9 11 16 23 50 42 26 15 6 6 5 50 47 38 18 9 9 10 3 3 1 8 4 13 16 75 16 4 13 2 5 3 75 18 6 16 3 7 7 3 6 9 16 50 67 77 75 32 39 26 29 23 16 75 35 56 33 41 37 33 Table A-13. Membership affiliation of public utilities employees, 1968-69 C it y s i z e C ities reporting unions or as s o c ia tions (A) C ities reporting organized pub lic utilities em p loyees (B) A ffiliation 1 AFSCME C ities Percent of (A) SEIU Percent of (B) T o t a l ---------------------- 1, 033 331 152 15 46 1, 00 0 , 000 and o v e r ------500, 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 --------2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ------------100, 0 00 25 0 , 000 - -- 50,000 1 0 0 ,000— - 25, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 000 ----------------10, 00 0 25, 00 0 ----- - - 4 19 23 61 171 28 7 468 3 11 13 32 60 95 117 3 7 8 16 30 42 46 75 37 35 26 18 15 10 100 64 62 50 50 44 39 C ities 13 3 Percent of (A) 1 16 - _ 2 3 1 4 3 2 (2) 1 LIU NA Percent of (B) C ities Percent of (A) 4 12 1 27 _ 6 5 1 3 4 1 _ 1 2 4 21 4 _ 1 1 1 Bu ild in g T r a d e s Percent of (B) Cities Percent of (B) 4 36 3 11 36 8 _ 2 2 3 1 6 5 3 3 2 16 25 32 22 5 2 1 3 33 55 38 9 5 2 14 O th e r un i on s IBT Percent of (A) O th er a s s o c i a t i o n s T o t a l ----------------------- 28 3 8 59 6 18 115 11 35 1, 00 0 , 000 and o v e r -------5 00 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 00 0 , 000 ---------2 5 0 , 0 0 0 500 , 000 - ---------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 -------------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ------- ---25, 00 0 50, 000 --------------10, 0 00 25, 000 --------------- 2 5 1 4 3 5 8 50 26 4 7 2 2 2 67 45 8 13 5 5 7 2 3 1 9 8 20 16 50 16 4 15 5 7 3 67 27 8 28 13 21 14 1 4 8 13 24 29 36 25 21 35 21 14 10 8 33 36 62 41 40 31 31 1 S e e f o o t n o t e 1, t a b l e A - 1 0 , 2 L e s s t h a n 0. 5 p e r c e n t . NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization. Table A-14. Membership affiliation of public health and hospital employees, 1968-69 City s iz e C ities reporting unions or as s o c ia tions (A) C ities reporting organized h e a l t h and hospital em p lo y ees (B) Affiliation 1 AFSCME Cities Percent of (A) Percent of (B) C ities Percent of (A) T o t a l ---------------------- 1,033 114 47 5 41 8 1 1 , 0 0 0 , 000 and o v e r --------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 00 0 --------2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 ------------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 00 0 ------------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 -------------25, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 00 0 ----------------1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 00 0 ----------------- 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 4 9 10 26 24 23 18 3 6 5 6 9 10 8 75 32 22 10 5 3 2 75 67 50 23 38 43 44 3 2 1 2 75 11 2 (2) T o t a l ----------------------1, 000 , 00 0 and o v e r --------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 00 0 ---------2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 00 0 -------------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 000 -------------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 --------------25, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 000 -----------------10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 000 ------------------ — — 9 2 3 1 2 1 1 50 16 2 1 (2) 1 S e e f o o t n o t e 1, t a b l e A - 10. 2 L e s s th a n 0 . 5 p e r c e n t . NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization. Percent of (B) 7 C ities 3 75 22 4 11 2 1 “ 9 1 O th er un i o n s IBT ... _. .. 8 50 33 4 8 6 10 2 3 3 2 “ 1 50 16 5 1 * B u il d in g T r a d e s LI U NA SEIU Percent of (A) ( 2) 11 2 - Percent of (B) Cities 3 4 ( 2) 1 22 4 - 2 2 - 50 11 - 50 33 12 8 - _ 1 ~ 2 - Percent of (B) 4 50 22 " O th e r a s s o c i a t i o n s FOP (2) Percent of (A) 1 68 7 60 _ 4 - 3 4 7 18 14 14 8 75 21 30 30 8 5 2 75 44 70 69 58 61 44 Table A -15. Membership affiliation of noninstructional educational employees, 1968-69 C ities reporting un i o n s or associ ations C it y s i z e (A) T o t a l __________________________ 1 , 0 0 0 , 00 0 and o v e r __________________ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 _________________ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000.____________________ 100, 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ____________________ 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 _____________________ 2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 .............................................. 10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 000 _______________________ 1,033 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 C ities r e p o r ti n g organized nonin s t r u c t io n a l e du c a tio n em p loyee s (B) 86 1 5 2 16 16 20 26 A f f il ia t i o n 1 Cities Percent of (A) Percent of (B) 50 5 58 1 3 1 8 9 11 17 25 16 4 13 5 4 4 100 60 50 50 56 55 65 Percent of (B) C ities Percent of (A) Percent of (B) (2 ) 3 5 (2 ) 6 11 (2 ) . 40 5 “ 1 2 1 1 - 25 11 4 2 - C ities Percent of (A) Percent of (B) C ities Percent of (A) 6 1 7 3 1 2 1 1 1 25 11 4 2 (2) Bu ild in g T r a d e s LIUNA SEIU AFSCME 100 40 50 6 4 2 1 “ Other u n i o n s 4 Total 1 , 0 0 0 , 000 and ov e r . 5 0 0 .0 0 0 - 1,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 ... 10 0, 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 000 ... . 5 0 . 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 00Q___ 25.0 0 0 50,000 _ 10.00025,0 0 0 _ 1 _ 1 S e e f o o t n o t e 1, t a b l e A - 1 0 . 2 L e s s tha n 0. 5 p e r c e n t . NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization, Other a s s o c i a t i o n s 5 7 1 8 37 5 20 1 3 25 16 100 60 _ _ _ _ _ 3 13 1 2 1 9 6 10 8 (2 ) 2 100 40 50 6 - _ _ 2 1 13 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 (2 ) 4 1 (2) 4 _ 4 43 25 11 4 15 4 3 2 100 40 50 56 38 50 31 Table A-16. Membership affiliation of parks and recreation employees, 1968-69 C ities reporting unions or a ssoci ations (A) C it y s i z e C ities reporting organized p a r k s and recreation em p loyees (B) Affiliation 1 C ities Percent of (A) LIU NA SEIU AFSCME Percent of (B) C ities Percent of (A) Percent of (B) T o t a l ---------------------- 1,033 411 190 18 46 15 1 4 1, 000, 000 and o v e r ------5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 --------2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ------------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ------------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 -------------2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 ----------------1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 ----------------- 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 4 13 16 44 95 132 107 4 8 10 21 45 63 39 100 42 43 34 26 22 8 100 62 63 48 47 48 36 1 4 25 21 25 31 7 2 2 3 - - 3 2 2 3 5 1 1 1 - ------- 31 — 1, 00 0 , 00 0 and o v e r -------500, 0 0 0 - 1 , 00 0, 00 0 -------2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 00 0 -------------1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 -------------5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 --------------2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 ---------------1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 ------------------ — 5 3 6 5 5 7 3 26 13 10 3 2 1 1 S e e f o o tn o t e 1, t a b l e A - 1 0 . 2 L e s s th a n 0. 5 p e r c e n t . NOTE: Nonadditive. 11 3 2 2 4 " O th e r un io ns IBT Total C ities Some cities reported m ore than 1 organization, 8 38 19 14 5 4 7 23 2 2 5 3 5 6 2 50 11 8 2 2 1 Percent of ____ (A)_______ 1 16 9 3 1 - Bu il d in g T r a d e s Percent of (B) C i t ie s 50 15 11 3 4 6 1 ( 2) 18 2 4 23 13 5 3 3 5 4 2 4 75 26 17 3 1 75 38 25 5 4 O th e r a s s o c i a t i o n s (2 ) . 1 - Percent of (B) 3 FOP 6 Percent of (A) 5 - 8 - ' ' 196 19 48 3 5 9 19 51 57 52 75 26 39 31 30 20 11 75 38 56 43 32 43 49 Table A-17. Membership affiliation of public welfare employees, 1968-69 Ci ty s i z e Cit ie s r e p o r ti n g uni ons or as socia t io n s (A) T o t a l -------------1, 000, 00 0 and o v e r 500, 0 0 0 - 1 , 000, 000 250, 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 — 100, 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 00 0 ----50, 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 000 -----25, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 00 0 --------10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 00 0 --------- C i t ie s reporting organized pu b lic w elfare em p loyees (B) A ffiliation 1 AFSCME C i t ie s Percent of (A) SEIU Percent of . .(B ) 1033 61 26 3 43 4 19 23 61 171 287 468 2 4 3 11 17 18 6 2 3 2 6 5 8 50 16 9 10 3 3 100 75 67 91 29 44 Cities 1 Total ■ 1 2 Nonadditive. (2) 1 25 - Some cities reported more than 1 organization. B u ild in g T r a d e s Percent of (B) 2 _ _ _ - - 1 (2 ) _ _ _ 6 Cities 7 4 (2) 1 25 11 - ( 2) 2 1 _ _ _ _ 25 _ _ _ - 50 _ _ _ _ - - : 7 34 3 56 50 50 1 1 1 5 11 10 5 25 5 4 8 6 3 1 50 25 33 45 65 56 83 - 1 1 1 6 - - - - - - 1 ( 2) 17 “ - - - - Percent of (B) Other a s s o c i a t i o n s 2 2 Percent of (A) 1 Oth er u ni o ns 50 12 - S e e f o o t n o t e 1, t a b l e A - 1 0 . L e s s th an 0. 5 p e r c e n t . NOTE: 4 _ . (12) . _ IB T 1, 000, 00 0 an d o v e r • 500, 0 0 0 - 1 , 000, 000 250, 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 ----100, 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 000 ----50, 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 -------25, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 000 --------10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 00 0 --------- Percent of (A) _ Table A-18. Membership affiliation of all other public employees, 1968-69 Cities reporting unions or associ ations Ci ty s i z e (A ) C ities reporting organ ize d other em p lo y ee s A ffiliation 1 Percent of Percent of (A) (B) (B) Total • 4 19 23 1, 000, 00 0 and o v e r ■ 500 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 000, 000 250, 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 ----100, 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 000 ----50, 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 00 0 ------25, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 --------10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 --------- 61 171 287 468 4 13 17 43 91 113 127 4 9 11 21 34 40 35 15 38 100 100 69 65 49 22 35 28 47 48 34 20 14 7 LIUNA SEIU AFSCME Percent of Percent of ■ 1A). __ (21__ Percent of ,- jA )-.. B u il d in g T r a d e s Percent of 75 16 7 75 23 9 1 1 2 (2) 2 2 25 16 4 2 (*) 1 1 2 21 9 7 2 1 1 S e e f o o t n o t e 1, t a b le A - 10. L e s s tha n 0. 5 p e r c e n t . NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization. 50 31 12 9 4 4 5 75 16 17 7 75 23 24 9 2 2 of 25 23 6 2 1 1 1 4 (2) 50 21 4 15 4 2 2 1 Oth er a s s o c i a t i o n s (2) 50 Percent 19 16 O ther u n i o n s 1, 000, 0 00 and o v e r ■ 50 0, 0 0 0 - 1 , 000, 000 250, 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 ----100, 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 000 ----50, 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 000 -----25, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 --------10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 --------- Percent of __(A)--- __(B) __ (bJ__ 50 31 6 21 7 4 7 (2) (2) 3 5 10 20 55 67 73 75 26 43 33 32 23 16 75 38 59 47 60 59 57 Table A-19. Type of documents used to record results of negotiatiations by type of recognition, 1968-69 T y p e of r e c o g n i t i o n No aition r e p o r te d Tot Formal Document A ssociations Informal M embers A ssociation s M embers A ssociation s M embers T o t a l ------------------------------------------------------------- 662 264, 366 393 171,352 224 72, 370 A s s o c ia t io n s reporting negotiations r ecorded— W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t o n l y ---------------------------------M e m o r a n d u m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g o n l y -------------O r d i n a n c e s o n l y -----------------------------------------------P e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s o nl y ---------------------------O th e r d o c u m e n t s o n l y 1 -----------------------------------W r i t t e n a g r e e m e n t p l u s one o r m o r e d o c u m e n t s ------------------------------------------------------ 531 160 58 73 49 33 213,321 34, 173 8, 526 9, 485 9, 747 5, 9 4 4 38 5 150 28 42 38 19 170, 33, 5, 4, 8, 2, 483 198 8 80 233 531 924 146 10 30 31 11 14 42, 838 97 5 2, 646 5, 252 1, 216 3, 02 0 56 67,399 52 65, 683 4 8 15 1, 042 3, 915 8 13 1, 042 2, 586 2 7 2 3, 536 435 7 2 3, 536 435 _ _ - - 1 200 1 200 - - 3 235 3 235 - - 1 701 1 701 - - 10 9, 056 8 8, 669 2 38 7 1 - - W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t and m e m o r a n d u m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g -------------------------------------------W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t and o r d i n a n c e s ----------W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t and p e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s -----------------------------------------------W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t and o t h e r -------------------W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t , m e m o r a n d u m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g and o r d i n a n c e s ---------------W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t , m e m o r a n d u m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g and p e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s ------------------------------------------------W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t , m e m o r a n d u m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g and o t h e r ------------------------W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t , o r d i n a n c e s and p e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s ----------------------------W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t , o r d i n a n c e s and o t h e r ---------------------------------------------------------W ritten a g r e e m e n t , personnel r e g u l a t i o n s and o t h e r --------------------------------W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t , m e m o r a n d u m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g , o r d i n a n c e s , and p e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s ----------------------------W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t , o r d i n a n c e s , p e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s and o t h e r -----------------W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t , m e m o r a n d u m of understanding, ordinances, personnel r e g u l a t i o n s and o t h e r -----------------------------T w o o r m o r e d o c u m e n t s --------------------------------O r d i n a n c e s and o t h e r --------------------------------P e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s and o t h e r -------------M e m o r a n d u m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g , o r d i n a n c e s and p e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s ---------O r d i n a n c e s , p e r s o n n e l r e g u la t i o n s and o t h e r ---------------------------------------------------------M e m o r a n d u m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g and o r d i n a n c e s ------------------------------------------------M e m o r a n d u m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g and p e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s ----------------------------M e m o r a n d u m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g and o t h e r ---------------------------------------------------------O r d i n a n c e s and p e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s ---No d o c u m e n t r e p o r t e d -----------------------------------------No r e c o g n i t i o n r e p o r t e d 2 ------------------------------------ S e e f o ot no t e 2, S e e fo o tn ot e 1, table 20. tab le 19. Associations M embers 45 20, 64 4 - - - - - - - - - 1,716 _ _ 1, 329 - 30 1 30 1 2 9 , 000 1 29,000 - 3 606 3 606 - 1 12 1 12 - 3 102 18,631 78,047 3 56 18,631 50,034 46 28,013 4 4 1,497 1,814 2 1 303 500 2 3 1, 194 1, 314 18 5, 441 7 1, 374 11 4, 067 2, 230 _ _ 7 11,453 4 9, 223 3 9 1,466 8 1, 216 1 250 17 2, 929 9 2, 228 8 701 2 41 86 45 173 53, 274 30,401 20, 644 2 23 8 173 35, 017 869 _ 18 78 - . 18,257 29,532 " - - . _ - - _ _ - - - - 45 20, 64 4 Table A-20. Type of documents used to record the results of negotiations by city size, 1968-69 Ci ty s i z e Total T y p e of d o c u m e n t 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 and o v e r A ssocia t io n s Member s A sso cia tions M embers 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 - 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 A sso c ia tions Members 250,000-500,000 A sso cia tions M embers 100,0 0 0 -2 5 0 ,0 0 0 A ssocia tions Member s T o t a l _______________________________________________ 393 171,352 43 6 2 , 652 18 37, 088 12 5,424 32 15,929 Recorded r esu lts -------- _------ ------------ ----------------------------W r it t en a g r e e m e n t o n l y ---------------- ---------------------------M e m o r a n d u m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g -------------------------------O r d i n a n c e s ____________________________________________ P e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s _______________________________ Oth er d o c u m e n t s _____________________________________ W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t p l u s o n e o r m o r e d o c u m e n t s . . . T w o or m o r e d o c u m e n t s . _____________________________ No d o c u m e n t r e p o r t e d ___________________________________ 385 150 28 42 38 19 52 56 8 170,483 33,198 5,880 4,233 8,531 2,924 65,683 50,034 869 41 22 2 _ 7 2 6 2 2 62 , 141 17,272 47 2, 755 380 39,737 1,950 511 18 4 3 2 1 5 2 “ 37,088 3, 158 2,465 845 1,978 700 1,662 26 , 280 “ 12 2 2 1 2 2 3 “ 5,424 1, 261 1, 335 100 62 1, 314 1, 352 “ 32 12 1 5 1 6 7 “ 15,929 2, 507 12 1,217 230 1,294 10,669 T o t a l ________________________________________________ R e c o r d e d r e s u l t s --------------------------------------------------------------W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t o n l y . ------- --------------------------------------M e m o r a n d u m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g ---------------------------------O r d i n a n c e s ------------ -------------------------------------------------------P e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s -------------------------------------------------O the r d o c u m e n t s __________________s.----------------------------W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t p l u s o n e o r m o r e d o c u m e n t s ___ T w o o r m o r e d o c u m e n t s _______________________ _____ No d o c u m e n t r e p o r t e d ------------------------------------------------------- I n t e r c i ty 10,000-25,000 25,000-- 5 0 ,0 0 0 50,000-100,000 87 13, 270 102 8, 591 94 4,633 5 23,765 86 34 6 6 11 5 11 13 1 13,130 4,037 1, 252 635 2,444 855 2, 193 1,714 140 101 38 6 15 9 5 13 15 1 8, 531 3, 552 344 781 840 577 624 1,813 60 91 38 8 14 6 6 7 12 3 4,492 1,411 42 5 655 222 41 2 253 1, 114 141 4 2 2 1 23, 748 18,606 5, 142 17 Table A-21. Type of documents used to record the results of negotiations by city size. 1968-69 Cit y s i z e To ta l 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 T y p e of d o c u m e n t A ssoci a t io n s M ember s A ssoci a t io n s 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 --1,000,000 and o v e r M embers T o t a l ................................................................... - — 224 72,370 7 10,015 R e c o r d e d r e s u l t s _____________________________ W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t o n l y ___________________ M e m o r a n d u m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g ---------------O r d i n a n c e s -------------------------------------------------P e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s _____________________ O th e r d o c u m e n t s __________________________ W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t pl u s o ne or m o r e d o c u m e n t s ---------------------------------------T w o or m o r e d o c u m e n t s -------------------------No d o c u m e n t s r e p o r t e d ----------------------------------- 146 5 - 14 4 2 , 838 975 2, 646 5, 252 1, 216 3, 020 1,040 615 320 105 4 46 78 1,716 28,013 29,532 - 10 30 31 11 2 1 - 2 2 50,000- - 8, 9 7 5 100,000 A ssoci ations 6 2 - 2 4 M embers 20,870 10 10,320 - 10 1 1 1 10,320 10,550 2 5 , 0 0 0 i - 5 0 , 000 100,000- 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 - 500,000 A ssoci a t io n s 7 M embers 11,166 11, 166 435 1, 200 675 - 8, 856 " 42 5, 391 82 7,825 54 3, 121 R e c o r d e d r e s u l t s ______________________________ W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t o n l y ____________ ______ _ M e m o r a n d u m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g ________— O r d i n a n c e s ___________________ ______________ P e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s ______________________ Oth er d o c u m e n t s ___________________________ W r it t e n a g r e e m e n t s p l u s one or m o r e d o c u m e n t s ___________________________ T w o or m o r e d o c u m e n t s -------------------- ------ No d o c u m e n t s r e p o r t e d ------------ ------------------------ 25 3, 597 183 785 480 651 76 54 3 5, 212 177 715 1,470 297 283 35 4 1,765 180 372 481 143 146 4 3 1 1 8 17 200 1,222 1,794 11 16 4 4 2 14 28 216 2, 054 2,613 20 10 7 3 3 - 8 19 443 1, 356 M embers 8,482 13 - 1 2 1 2 7, 238 159 1, 301 125 535 7 7 5, 118 1,244 10, 0 0 0 - - 2 5 , 0 0 0 T o t a l --------------------- ------------------------------- --- 2 6 A ssoci a t io n s Intercity 3 2 - 1 1 1 5, 500 2, 500 - 1,200 1, 300 - 3, 000 Appendix B. Municipal Public Employee Associations and Membership in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 1968-69 SMSA Associations Members Total, all SMSA’s . . . . 533 2 3 4 ,9 6 8 Akron, Ohio.............................. Albany—Schenectady— Troy, N .Y ........................... Allentown-BethlehemEaston, Pa.—N.J ............. Altoona, P a .............................. Anaheim—Santa Ana— Garden Grove, Calif . . . Anderson, In d ian a................. Atlantic City, N.J .................. Augusta, Ga.—S .C ................. Austin, T e x .............................. Bakersfield, C alif.................... Beaumont—Port A rth urOrange, T e x ...................... Binghamton, N .Y .................... Birmingham, A l a .................... Bloomington—Normal, 111.......................................... Boise City, Id a h o .................... Boston, M ass........................... Bridgeport, C onn.................... Buffalo, N .Y ........................... Canton, O h io........................... Cedar Rapids, Io w a ............... Chicago, 111 .............................. Cincinnati, Ohio—Ky.— I n d ........................................ Cleveland, O h io ...................... Dallas, T ex ................................ Dayton, O hio........................... Denver, C o lo ........................... Des Moines, Iow a.................... Detroit, Mich ......................... Dubuque, I o w a ...................... Duluth—Superior, Minn— W is ........................................ 4 1,184 4 63 9 3 1 497 100 20 1 2 1 1 1 12,373 181 255 150 29 30 8 1 2 2 143 115 1,129 1 1 9 4 8 1 1 10 46 60 535 23 7 2 ,5 0 7 181 125 404 1 5 1 2 6 2 40 1 1,200 55 9 1,200 492 1,173 471 6 ,9 8 0 55 1 60 SMSA Erie, P a ..................................... Fitchburg—Leominster, M ass..................................... Flint, Mich .............................. Fresno, C a lif............................ Galveston—Texas City, T e x ........................................ Gary—Hammond—East Chicago, I n d ...................... Grand Rapids, M ich............... Green Bay, Wis ...................... Hartford, C o n n ...................... Huntington—Ashland, W. Va—Ky.—O h io ............. Jackson, M ic h ......................... Jersey City, N .J ...................... Kalamazoo, M ich.................... Kenosha, W is........................... Knoxville, T e n n ...................... Lancaster, P a ........................... Lansing, M ic h ......................... Las Vegas, N e v ....................... Lewiston—Auburn, M a in e ................................... Lexington, K y ......................... Lima, Ohio .............................. Lorain-Elyria, O h io ............. Los Angeles-Long Beach, C a lif..................................... Louisville, Ky.— Ind ........................................ Madison, W is........................... Manchester, N .H .................... Miami, F l a ................................ Milwaukee, W is ...................... Minneapolis—St. Paul, M inn..................................... Montgomery, A la.................... Muncie, I n d .............................. 38 Associations Members i 200 2 3 1 189 7 33 1,312 1 65 1 3 1 7 32 297 76 399 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 164 145 385 213 128 175 92 165 810 1 1 1 1 90 278 70 48 60 3 5 ,2 8 4 1 1 2 5 16 613 22 5 162 2 ,2 0 6 2,3 6 3 2 1 1 43 3 25 138 SMSA Muskegon-Muskegon Heights, M ic h .................... New Britain, C onn................. New Haven, C o n n .................. New London—Groton— Norwich, C o n n ................. New York, N .Y ...................... Newark, N .J .............................. Norwalk, Conn......................... Ogden, U t a h ........................... Oklahoma City, O k la............. Omaha, Nebr.—I o w a ............ Oxnard—Ventura, Calif . . . . Paterson—Clifton— Passaic, N .J ......................... Philadelphia, Pa.—N .J............ Phoenix, A r iz ......................... Pittsburgh, P a ......................... Portland, M aine...................... Portland, O reg.-W ash.......... Providence—Pawtucket— Warwick, R.I.—Mass . . . . Racine, W is .............................. Reading, P a ............ ................ Rochester, N .Y ...................... Sacramento, C a lif ................. Saginaw, M ic h ......................... Salem, O reg .............................. Salinos—Monterey, Calif . . . St. Joseph, M o ......................... Salt Lake City, U t a h ............. San Antonio, T e x .................. San Bernardino—Riverside— Ontario, C a lif.................... Associations SMSA Members 1 1 4 120 55 23 7 2 48 10 5 3 1 1 4 40 5 3 ,1 6 2 4 ,7 3 0 431 422 460 70 453 8 4 2 7 4 2 1,018 8 ,8 4 6 372 3 ,3 2 3 7 35 125 9 1 1 1 3 2 1 7 1 1 1 7 76 174 160 41 1,151 170 760 674 70 835 75 0 9 4 ,9 3 2 San Diego, Calif .................... San Francisco—Oakland, C a lif..................................... San Jose, C alif......................... Santa Barbara, C alif............... Seattle—Everett, W ash.......... Sioux City, Iowa—Nebr . . . . South Bend, I n d .................... Springfield, 111......................... Springfield—ChicopeeHoly oke, Mass.—C onn. . . Stamford, C onn...................... Steubenville—Weirton, Ohio-W. V a ...................... Stockton, C a l i f ...................... Syracuse, N .Y ......................... Tampa—St. Petersburg, Fla ........................................ Toledo, Ohio—M ich............... Topeka, Kans........................... Trenton, N . J ................. .......... Tucson, A r i z ........................... Utica—Rome, N .Y ................. Vallejo-Napa, C alif............... Washington, D.C.—Md.— V a .......................................... West Palm Beach, F la ............ Wichita, Kans........................... Wilkes-Barre—Hazelton, P a .......................................... Wilmington, D el—N.J.— Md ........................................ Worcester, M ass...................... 39 Associations Members 19 5 ,0 6 2 42 9 2 3 1 2 1 4 5 ,9 8 2 1,882 451 1,505 175 328 145 8 5 890 1,061 1 2 2 28 210 160 2 4 1 3 1 2 5 450 1,268 142 2 ,3 6 8 250 32 496 4 2 1 5,711 2 98 33 1 96 1 1 28 12 Appendix C. Employee O rganizations Questionnaire EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS I. In the table below please enter the appropriate figures indicating the number of employees in each function and the number represented (members as well as nonmembers) by unions or employee associations in deal ing with the city, either formally or informally, on such subjects as wages, working conditions, promotions, grievances or other personnel matters. Total Number of Employees Number of Employees Represented by unions or associations Number of Employees Not Represented by unions or associations Police P ro te c tio n ............................. (7-11) (12-16) (17-21) Fire Protection ................................ (22-26) (27-31) (32-36) Public W orks..................................... (37-41) (42-46) (47-51) Public U tilities.................................. (52-56) (57-61) (62-66) Public Health and Hospitals . . . . (7-11) (12-16) (17-21) City Operated Education (Noninstructional Personnel) (22-26) (27-31) (32-36) Parks and R e c re a tio n .................... (37-41) (42-46) (47-51) Public W elfare.................................. (52-56) (57-61) (62-66) All Other Employees....................... (7-11) (12-16) (17-21) Total E m p lo y ees................. (22-26) (27-31) (32-36) Function 1 Developed and mailed by the International City Management Association. 40 41 - All Other Employees 45- Public Welfare 44- Parks & Recreation 40 Education (NonInstructional Personnel) 4^- Public Health & Hospitals 4i- Public Utilities 4U- Public Works B y- Fire Protection BB- Police Protection O/- Function (1) American Federation o f State, County & Municipal Employees (2 ) Building Service Employees Inter national Union (3 ) Laborers Inter national Union (4 ) Building Trades Unions (Carpenters, Plumbers, Etc.) (5 ) Inter national Brother hood of Teamsters (6) Inter national Association of Fire Fighters (7 ) Fraternal Order of Police (8 ) Other (9 ) LOCAL ASSOCIATION NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY NATIONAL ORGANIZATION II. If in Question I yc)u have shown;any employees <is representejd by unions oi: associations , please identif y the organicnations t() which they belong by placing a checl: (v) in the app ropriate columri(s) below. III. If in Question II you have checked any of the last 3 columns (FOP, Other, Local Association not Affiliated with any National Organization) please supply the following information about each such association. Name of Association --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name and Title of Chief Officer or Representative --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mailing Address --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of Association ----------------- Name and Title of Chief Officer or ----------------Representative Mailing Address ----------------- Name of Association ----------------- Name and Title of Chief Officer or Representative' ----------------Mailing Address ----------------- Name of Association ----------------- Name and Title of Chief Officer or Representative ----------------Mailing Address ----------------- Title Name (please print) 42 Appendix D. BLS Q uestionnaire BLS 2890 Budget Bureau No. 44- R1360 Approval Expires July 31, 1970 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS W ashington, D.C. 2 0 2 12 Survey of Employee Associations in the Public Service I. Id e n tifica tio n : (Please change if shown incorrectly above. ) II. F u n c t io n s : 1. Does your organization participate in legislative activities (i. e. , seeking legislative support, sponsoring legislation) on bills or proposals pertaining to public employees ? ---------------------------- ----------------- d ] Yes [ ^ ] No 2. Does your organization, as one of its primary functions, represent public employees on matters of wages, working conditions, or grievances, etc. , in direct dealings or meetings with supervisors or o ffic ia ls ? --------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- | ] Yes 1 ] No If both 1 and 2 are answered as "No, " no other questions need be answered. Please sign and return the form. 3. Please indicate the approximate number or proportion of members employed in each of the following jurisdictions. Federal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------- State----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- County-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- C it y ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- School district---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- Other public employment (please s ta te )---------------------------------------------- ----------------------- All nongovernmental - r ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- 4. Of those in public service, please indicate the approximate number or proportion covered by civil service codes or regulations (merit s y ste m )--------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- 43 III. S tru ctu re and M e m b e rs h ip : 1. Date your organization was founded------------------------------------------------------ --------------- Year 2. Approximate number of members in 1962 ---------------------------------------------- -------- 3. Number of current members-----------------------------------------------------------------4. Members Members Please indicate the number or proportion of current members in the following classifications: Professional, technical, and c le r ic a l-----------------------------------Policemen and firem en-------------------------------------------------------Blue collar or manual crafts and occupations--------------------------Other (please s t a t e ) ------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Has your organization chartered local chapters or similar b o d ie s? ---------------------- - ......... - - - - - .......... - .................- .................................... If "Yes, " how many are now in operation?------------ -------------------------------- ___ □ Yes □ No ----------------------- (If you have a directory of affiliated organizations, please enclose a copy. ) 6. Is your organization affiliated with (i. e. , pays regular dues or per capita tax to) any other organization, council, or fed eration ?---- ------------ □ Yes □ No If "Yes, " please give name and address of organization with which affiliated. 7. Has your organization adopted a constitution, bylaws, or similar docum ent?-------------------- ......... - ....................................~ ~ --------- ------------- ___ ___ □ Yes □ No If "Yes," please enclose a copy for our files. 8. Amount of annual dues per m em ber-----------------------------------------------------If not a standard amount, please indicate how dues are set. 9. $_______________ Publication: Name How often published 44 III. S tru ctu re 10. an d M e m b e rs h ip — C o n tin u e d Are there any other organizations that may also represent your members or similar public employee groups within your jurisdiction?--------------------------- [ j Yes | I No If "Yes," please identify these organizations. IV . E m p lo y e r —E m p lo y e e 1. R e la t io n s (to be answered if item II-2 was checked "Yes): Has your organization been recognized as a representative of employees? 2. 1 I Formally (i. e. , by law, executive order, departmental order, etc. ) 1 | Informally Results of formal negotiations are recorded in— □ □ □ □ □ Written agreements-------------------------------------------------------------(Please enclose copy; indicate number of employees covered) Memoranda of understanding-----------------------------------------------Ordinances-------------------------------------------------------------------------Personnel regulations-----------------------------------------------------------Other (please s t a t e ) ------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Meetings with supervisors or officials are held— 1 □ | Regularly, at specified intervals Irregularly, at the request o f either party 4. Issues that have been or may be discussed with supervisors or officials. f □ Job classifications 1 1 Working conditions □ 5. 1 Pay matters j | Discharges 1 ] Fringe benefits 1 1 Grievance procedures Promotions or promotion policy □ Other (please state) In grievance cases, may your organization— Represent the aggrieved em p lo y ee? --------------------------------------------------- 1 1 Yes □ No Act as an observer o n ly ? --------------------------------- - .......................................... □ Yes □ No Be notified officially of the outcome of the case (no direct participation)?------------------------------------------------------------------ __ 1 1 Yes [ 45 1 No V. D ir e c t o r y of E m p lo y e e A s s o c ia t io n s : 1. Do you think a national directory of employee associations in the public service would be useful?-------------- -- - - - ------- ---------------------- □ Yes □ No 2. Would your organization object to a listing in such a directory?--------------------------------------------- ------------------ --------------------------- ___ □ Yes □ No 3. If you do not object, please furnish the names of the following officers and their correct titles: President _____________________________________________________________________________ Secretary-treasurer___________________________________________________________________ (or financial officer) Executive secretary__________________________________________________________________ (or chief full-tim e official) V I. C o m m e n ts : Please feel free to comment on particular items in this questionnaire or on the survey generally. (Person reporting) (Title) (Date) 46 rU. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1971 O - 484-782 (9) B U R E A U O F L A B O R S T A T IS T IC S R E G IO N A L O F F IC E S Region I 1603-A Federal Building Government Center Boston, Mass. 02203 Phone: 223-6762 (Area Code 617 Region V 219 South Dearborn St. Chicago, III. 60604 Phone: 353-7230 (Area Code 312) R e g io n II 341 Ninth Ave., Rm. 1025 New York, N .Y. 10001 Phone: 971-5405 (Area Code 212) Region V I 1100 Commerce St., Rm. 6B7 Dallas, Tex. 75202 Phone: 749-3516 (Area Code 214) Region III 406 Penn Square Building 1317 Filbert St. Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 Phone: 597-7796 (Area Code 215) Regions V II and V III Federal Office Building 911 Walnut St., 10th Floor Kansas C ity, Mo. 64106 Phone: 374-2481 (Area Code 816) Region IV Suite 540 1371 Peachtree St. N E. Atlanta, Ga. 30309 Phone: 526-5418 (Area Code 404) Regions IX and X 450 Golden Gate Ave. Box 36017 San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Phone: 556^678 (Area Code 415) Regions V II and V III w ill be serviced by Kansas City. Regions IX and X will be serviced by San Francisco. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS WASHINGTON, D.C 20212 OFFICIAL BUSINESS P E N A L T Y F O R P R IV A T E U S E , $300 THIRD CLASS MAIL POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
@FedFRASER