Municipal

.abor-Management

delations:

Chronology

f Compensation

developments

i Milwaukee,

960-70

Z, 3 '■

n z

ulletin 1720

. S. Department of Labor

ureau of Labor Statistics

orth Central Regional Office 

hicago, Illinois

971

Payton & Montgcwnery Co, 

Public Library

NOV 241971 

DOCUMENT COLLECTION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Municipal

Labor-Management

Relations:

Chronology

of Compensation

Developments

in Milwaukee,

1960-70

Bulletin 1720

U. S. Department of Labor

J. D. Hodgson, Secretary

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner

North Central Regional Office

Chicago, lllnois

Wiliam E Rice, Regional Director

1971

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.25

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Preface

This bulletin presents a summary of the major changes in salaries and supplementary 

(fringe) benefits that have taken place during the period 1960 to 1970 for municipal 

employees subject to the regulation of the Milwaukee Common Council, the city’s 

governing body. Included are provisions covering general city employees, who are subject 

to City Service Commission rules, and employees of the Fire and Police Departments, 

who are subject to the rules of the Fire and Police Commission. Excluded are special 

provisions applicable to prevailing wage employees, “exempt” employees, and part-time 

members of boards and commissions. Changes affecting employees whose compensation 

is set by the Milwaukee Board of School Directors or by the Milwaukee Sewerage 

Commission are outside the scope of the study.

In 1970, the number of employees under the control of the Common Council averaged 

10,035. Included were 6,053 general city employees and 360 prevailing wage employees 

subject to City Service Commission rules; 2,244 Police Department personnel, including 

175 civilian employees; 1,110 Fire Department personnel, including 33 civilian 

employees; 215 exempt employees (includes Learn-by-doing and OJT trainees); 36 

employees of part-time boards and commissions; 11 employees of the Fire and Police 

Commission; and two employees of the Fire and Police Annuity Boards. The Milwaukee 

School Board had an average employment of 11,813 in 1970, and the Sewage Commission had 440.

A municipal government wage survey bulletin for Milwaukee, which the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics will publish in 1972, will supplement this report and update it through 

1971.

This bulletin was prepared by Woodrow C. Linn of the Bureau’s North Central 

Regional Office, Chicago, Illinois. The author gratefully acknowledges the cooperation of 

Robert C. Gamier, City Personnel Director for the city of Milwaukee, and Arnold A. 

Logan, Supervisor, Classification Division, Milwaukee Personnel Department. The author 

also would like to thank Theodore G. Scher, Personnel Analyst, who is on the staff of the 

Classification Division, for his assistance in preparation and checking of tables used in this 

manuscript.

iii

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

Parties to agreements ........................................................................................................................... 1

Statutes pertaining to compensation for municipal employees ..................................................... 1

History of public employee unions in Milwaukee ............................................................................ 2

Developments during the 1940’s 3

Developments during the 1950’s 4

1959 developments ....................................................................................................................................... 6

City’s formal wage hearing procedures set ........................................................................................ 6

City grants official recognition to labor unions ............................................................................... 6

State legislature passes Section 111.70 .............................................................................................. 7

1960 developments ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Garbage collectors strik e .................................................................................................................... 9

1961 developments .......................................................................................................................................... 10

City’s cost-of-living adjustment machinery based on C PI.............................................................. 10

City rejects union dem ands.............................................................................................................. 10

1962 developments ....................................................................................................................................... 12

WERB holds first representation hearings for city employees ........................................................ 12

City hears union demands for 1963 ................................................................................................... 12

Question of procedures snags wage hearings ..................................................................................... 12

Union seeks recourse through W E R B ................................................................................................. 13

City personnel director presents recommendations for 1963 ........................................................ 13

Traditional hearing procedures meet strong opposition ................................................................ 13

City agrees to “Confer and Negotiate” on advice of city attorney ............................................... 13

Finance committee recommendations opposed by two unions .....................................................

City closes wage negotiations over District Council 48’s objections ............................................ 14

Joint policy and technical committees reestablished........................................................................ 14

1963 developments ....................................................................................................................................... 16

WERB holds representation elections for city employees ............................................................. 16

City prepares for 1963 negotiations ................................................................................................. 16

Initial union demands listed ............................................................................................................... 16

Earlier negotiations scheduled for 1963 ........................................................................................... 17

Procedural problems arise at outset of negotiations......................................................................... 17

Pay demand for city employees on union negotiating teams slows talks ...................................... 17

Garbage union asks WERB to settle meeting time dispute .............................................................. 18

City and union resolve paid negotiating time roadblock ................................................................ 18

Negotiations commence on substantive issues .................................................................................. 19

Finance committee presents city’s final offer .................................................................................. 19

Unions reject final city o f f e r ............................................................................................................... 19

Major unions apply to WERB for factfinding .................................................................................. 20

Truck drivers stop work ..................................................................................................................... 20

City joins major unions in requesting factfinding ............................................................................ 20

Page

v

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents — Continued

1964 developments .......................................................................................................................................... 21

WERB conducts representation elections in non-DPW departments ............................................21

Unions submit demands for 1965 ...................................................................................................... 21

Prolonged factfinding delays negotiations for 1965 ......................................................................... 21

City appoints city personnel director as chief n eg o tiato r....................................................................22

Factfinders about ready to release recom m endations..........................................................................22

City reaches agreement with District Council 48 for 1965 .............................................................. 22

City offers District Council 48 terms for 1965 to other unions ........................................................ 22

Factfinding panel’s final report issued on December 14 23

Factfinders recommend new procedures for future negotiations ..................................................23

Full-time labor negotiator also recommended ..................................................................................... 23

New timetable suggested for future negotiations ............................................................................ 23

Factfinders favor written contracts......................................................................................................... 24

Panel suggests guidelines for public’s “Right to Know” .............................................................. 24

Factfinders recommend separate police pay p l a n ......................................................................... 24

Factfinders support most demands of fire fighters’ association.................................................. 24

Panel recommends that demands of garbage collectors be studied fu r th e r............................. 24

Panel recommends further consideration of District Council 48’s demands............................. 25

Interpretation of factfinders’ report in dispute............................................................................... 25

City acts to implement factfinders’ recommendations ................................................................. 25

1965 developments ....................................................................................................................................... 26

City moves to implement factfinders’ recommendations ..............................................................26

WERB helps city and District Council 48 solve sticky issu e s............................................................... 26

City and District Council 48 agree on 1965 contract provisions......................................................... 26

Negotiations with District Council 48 for 1965 conclude with reallocations ............................. 27

City settles with police association for 1965 ..................................................................................... 27

Garbage Union negotiations for 1965 postponed until 1966 ........................................................ 27

Fire Association negotiations for 1965 rescheduled to 1966 ....................................................... 27

Unions submit demands for 1966 negotiations ............................................................................... 28

City responds to unions with counterproposal ...............................................................................28

Division of labor relations created ................................................................................................... 29

Negotiations for 1966 show little p ro g ress........................................................................................... 29

City and District Countil 48 extend tim etab le..................................................................................... 29

District Council 48 presents counteroffer to city ............................................................................ 30

City requests mediation in negotiations with District Council 48 ..................................................30

Tentative 3-year agreement reached with District Council 48 ........................................................

Tentative 3-year agreements reached with health department u n io n s ............................................30

Tentative 1-year agreement reached with police association .......................................................... 31

City and four unions agree to WERB m ediatio n ............................................................................... 31

City holds public hearing on tentative agreements with five u n io n s ...............................................31

City and four more unions reach tentative agreement ....................................................................31

Fire Fighters’ Association heads towards im p asse............................................................................ 31

Fire Fighters’ Association favors factfinding solution...................................................................... 32

Garbage union asks court to enforce factfinders’ recommendations ............................................32

Independent Garbage Union affiliates with AFL-CIO, wins election challenge .......................... 32

Local 61 again asks courts to enforce factfinders’ recommendations ......................................... 32

Page

vi

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents — Continued

1966 developments ..........................................................................................................................................34

City and Fire Fighters’ Association reach agreement for 1966 ..................................................... 34

Agreement with Garbage Collection Laborers averts strike ...........................................................34

City fails to reach agreement with Police and Fire A ssociations.................... ................................34

1967 developments ..........................................................................................................................................36

City and Fire Fighters’ Association reach agreement early in 1967 ...............................................36

City and Police Association agree on 2-year pact ............................................................................36

Fire Associations sign memorandums of understanding for 1968 .................................................. 37

Factfinding by WERC employed in District Council 48 local issues ............................................31

District Council 48 submits demands for 1969 in ad v a n ce............................................................. 37

Garbage Workers Union attempts to reopen 3-year contract for 1968 ...................................... 37

Common Council approves new management rates ............................................................................. 38

WERC establishes one-man craft bargaining unit ............................................................................ 38

City Service Commission responds to collective bargaining challenge............................................38

1968 developments .......................................................................................................................................... 40

1969 negotiations begin with 17 unions ........................................................................................... 40

Early agreement reached with Police Association ................................................................................40

Local 215 agreement sets pattern for other fire unions ................................................................ 40

Negotiations with general city employee unions move slowly ........................................................41

City makes counterproposal to initial union demands ................................................................... 41

Negotiations with general employee unions show little progress ..................................................42

City’s chief negotiator reports slowdown in negotiations ............................................................. 42

Union rivalries and excessive fragmentation complicate negotiations............................................42

Improved city offer designed to break logjam ..................................................................................43

District Council 48 rejects new city offer ........................................................................................43

District Council 48 membership authorizes strike a c tio n ................................................................ 43

City’s request for factfinding rejected by WERC . . . ....................................................................43

WERC gives negotiations a needed push ...........................................................................................44

Negotiations with District Council 48 falter again ......................................................................... 44

City again requests factfinding with two major general unions ...................................................... 44

Teamsters union initiates factfinding with city ............................................................................... 44

Local 61 and District Council 48 balk on factfinding ..................................................................... 45

City and District Council 48 reach tentative agreement ................................................................ 45

1968 representation activities keep WERC busy ......................................................................... 45

Middle management classes receive selective adjustments in 1968 ............................................... 45

1969 developments ...................................................................................................................................... 47

Garbage Collectors Union stages strike .............................................................................................. 47

District Council 48 members ratify agreement with city ................................................................ 47

Agreement with Garbage Collectors Union ends strike ................................................................... 47

Most other unions accept District Council 48 formula ................................................................... 48

Three late settlements follow factfinding proceedings ................................................................... 48

WERC continues active role in representation cases ...................................................................... 48

City Attorney rules on legality of negotiations in p riv a te ................................................................. 48

Page

vii

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents — Continued

1970 developments .......................................................................................................................................50

New management pay plan ap p ro v ed ....................................................................................................50

Unions submit 1971 wage and fringe benefit demands ................................................................... 50

District Council 48 lists extensive demands for 1971 ...................................................................... 51

Various demands submitted by other large unions ......................................................................... 51

City hints at specific proposals for each union ...............................................................................51

City’s 1970 negotiations with District Council 48 start slowly .....................................................51

1971 budget includes 5% million for anticipated wage increases ............................................... 52

City petitions WERC for representation election in new Bureau of Sanitation ...........................52

Negotiations with District Council 48 break o f f ...............................................................................52

Contracts extended by city and its employee unions ................................................................... 53

PPPA membership authorizes strike v o t e .............................................................................................. 53

1970 ends with little to show in metropolitan area public employee negotiations ................. 53

Other major taxing units report tentative agreements ................................................................... 53

Five major taxing units negotiators confer regularly . . . ..............................................................54

Several representation elections held in 1970 .................................................................................. 55

Tables:

1. General salary changes—general city employees, Milwaukee .......................................................... 57

2. General salary changes—police and fire service personnel, Milwaukee ......................................... 59

3. Overtime compensation—general city employees, Milwaukee ........................................................ 60

4. Overtime compensation—police and fire service personnel, M ilw aukee......................................... 62

5. Shift differential compensation—general city employees, M ilw aukee............................................ 63

6. Weekend differential pay—general city employees, Milwaukee ..................................................... 64

7. Weekend differential pay—police and fire service personnel, Milwaukee ...................................... 64

8. Vacation provisions—general city employees, Milwaukee .............................................................. 65

9. Vacation provisions—police and fire service personnel, Milwaukee ............................................... 65

10. Holiday pay provisions—general city employees, M ilwaukee........................................................... 66

11. Holiday pay provisions—police and fire service personnel, Milwaukee .......................................... 67

12. Call-in pay provisions—general city employees, Milwaukee .............................................................. 67

13. Owed time provisions—general city employees, Milwaukee ........................................................... 67

14. Annual military training leave pay—city employees, Milwaukee ............................................... 68

15. Military funeral leave pay—city employees, Milwaukee .............................................................. 68

16. Pay for time off for military induction examinations—city employee, Milwaukee ..................... 68

17. Jury duty pay—city employees, Milwaukee ..................................................................................... 68

18. Sick leave benefits—general city employees, Milwaukee ................................................................ 69

19. Sick leave benefits—police and fire service personnel, Milwaukee .................................................. 69

20. Health benefit plans-city employees, M ilw aukee............................................................................ 70

21. Duty-incurred disability benefits—general city employees, Milwaukee .......................................... 71

22. Duty-incurred disability benefits—police and fire service personnel, M ilw aukee.......................... 71

23. Group life insurance—city employees, Milwaukee........................................................................... 72

24. Retirement benefits under employees’ retirement system—city employees, Milwaukee . . . 73

25. Clothing allowance and related practices—city employees, M ilw aukee...................................... 76

26. 1960 salary rates, all city employees, Milwaukee ............................................................................ 77

27. 1961-67 salary rates (biweekly), all city employees, M ilw aukee..................................................... 79

28. 1961-67 salary rates (monthly), all city employees, Milwaukee ..................................................... 82

29. 1961-67 salary rates (annual), all city employees, Milwaukee ........................................................ 85

30. 1968-69 general salary rates (biweekly), city employees, Milwaukee ............................................ 88

Page

viii

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents — Continued

31. 1968-69 general salary rates (monthly), city employees, Milwaukee ............................................. 90

32. 1968-69 general salary rates (annual), city employees, Milwaukee ...................................... 92

33. 1970 Nonmanagement salary rates, city employees, M ilw aukee..................................................... 94

34. 1970 Management salary rates, city employees, Milwaukee .......................................................... 96

35. 1969 Salary rates for engineers and architects, city employees, Milwaukee ................................ 98

36. 1970 salary rates for engineers and architects, city employees, Milwaukee ................................ 98

37. 1965-70 salary rates for police service personnel, Milwaukee ........................................................ 99

38. 1966-70 salary rates for fire service personnel, M ilw aukee.............................................................. 103

39. Earnings of selected classes of municipal employees, Milwaukee, July 1970 ........................... 105

Appendixes:

A. Section 1 1 1 .7 0 ..............................................................................................................................109

B. Certified for recognized bargaining units, 1963-70 ................................................................ I l l

Page

IX

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Introduction

Parties to agreements

The Common Council is the legislative branch of the 

government of the City of Milwaukee. It passes the city’s 

laws in the form of ordinances, and sets its official 

policies through the adoption of resolutions. It has the 

responsibility of managing the city’s finances, property, 

public services, highways, and navigable waters. It has 

the power to handle all matters affecting the city 

government, good order, safety and health, or commercial benefit.

The Common Council is composed of aldermen, each 

elected for 4-year terms to represent his ward. In 1960, 

there were 20 aldermatic wards; however, the State 

Assembly Districts, which are contiguous with ward 

boundaries in the City of Milwaukee, were redrawn by 

the State Legislature before the 1964 elections, on the 

basis of the final 1960 U.S. Census figures. The 

redistricting, on this basis, left the city of Milwaukee 

with only 19 wards. So, the Common Council totalled 

19 aldermen from 1964 through 1970.

One of the important standing committees of the 

Common Council is the Committee on Finance-Printing, 

often referred to as the “Finance Committee.” This is 

the principal committee involved with labor negotiations 

and other financial matters.

The City Service Commission (established by charter 

ordinance in 1895) is composed of five citizen members 

appointed by the Mayor to overlapping 5-year terms. 

The commission’s major responsibilities are to establish 

personnel policy, subject to provisions of collective 

bargaining agreements; to set standards for and administer entrance and promotional examinations for 

employment in city departments, excluding the Fire and 

Police Departments; and to represent the public interest 

in matters of appeal. The commission’s staff, under 

direction of its chief executive and administrative 

officer, the City Personnel Director, administers the 

city’s comprehensive personnel program through its 

three divisions; examination, classification, and administration.

The Fire and Police Commission (established in 1885) 

is composed of five citizen members appointed by the 

Mayor to overlapping 5-year terms, subject, however, to 

Common Council approval. It is the oldest civil service 

authority in Wisconsin. The commission establishes 

personnel employment policy, subject to provisions of 

collective bargaining agreements, and sets standards for

entrance and promotional examinations for employees 

of the Fire and Police Departments. In major disciplinary actions, the commission serves in a quasijudicial 

capacity and conducts appeal hearings. Since 1946, the 

City Personnel Director, by authorization of the commission, has had the responsibility for classifying and 

reclassifying employees in the Fire and Police Departments.

Statutes pertaining to compensation for municipal employees

Statutory requirements governing the compensation 

of the city’s employees are set forth in Section 526 of 

Chapter 66 of the Wisconsin Statutes. This section, 

entitled “General Municipal Law,” authorizes the 

Common Council of any first class city1 to adopt a 

uniform and comprehensive salary and wage ordinance 

based on a classification of offices, employments and 

positions in the city service, including any and all 

positions, whether or not previously so classified, 

“provided provision has been made in the budget of the 

current year for the total sum of money required for the 

payment. . . and a tax levied to include the same ....”

Chapter 65 of the Wisconsin Statutes, which governs 

the city’s budget system, establishes the Common 

Council as the general arbiter of conflicting demands for 

the city’s funds. Section 65.02 requires a uniform 

compensation schedule establishing uniform rates of pay 

for offices and positions in the city service for the 

ensuing fiscal year. Section 65.04 requires that the 

Common Council adopt not later than November 20 of 

each year a compensation schedule showing the number, 

title, and compensation range of each officer and 

position in the city service. Section 65.05 provides that 

the rates of pay and the number of positions established 

in the budget shall determine the total compensation of 

employees in the city service for the ensuing year, v/ith 

the exception that additional jobs may be added during 

the year by action of the Common Council.

The aforementioned statutes apply to employees who 

are under the city’s civil service law. Sections 63.18 

through 63.53 of the Wisconsin Statutes form Milwaukee’s civil service law and provide for the board of 

city service commissioners, appointed by the Mayor.2 

Section 63.23 directs the City Service Commission to 

“classify all offices and positions in the city service,

1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
except those subject to the exemptions of section 63.27, 

according to the duties and responsibilities of each 

position.”3 It also requires that all positions which the 

Commission considers as “substantially the same with 

respect to authority, responsibility and character of 

work” be included in the same class. It adds, “From 

time to time the Commission may reclassify positions 

upon a proper showing that the position belongs to a 

different class.”

Section 63.23(2) authorizes the Commission, “if it 

sees fit, to receive any expert study or recommendation 

of the classification, allocation and compensation of 

offices and positions in the service of the city and 

transmit the same, with or without the Commission’s 

recommendations, to the Common Council.” Any such 

report becomes effective when approved by the 

Common Council. The function of the Classification 

Division of the City Personnel Department is to make 

studies for the City Service Commission, as well as to 

conduct surveys of wages and fringe benefits in private 

employment and in other cities to be used in the 

determination of pay ranges, classifications, job evaluations or reallocations.

Sections 63.24, 63.25, and 63.26 deal with the City 

Service Commission’s responsibility for establishing and 

administering uniform rules applicable to examinations, 

filling vacancies, promotions, terminations of employment, and appointments.

Passage by the State Legislature of the Wisconsin 

Municipal Employee Relations Act (Section 111.70, 

Wisconsin Statutes) in 1959, together with the 1961 

enactment of subsections (l)(c) and (4) to Section

111.70, introduced significant procedural changes in the 

system that the Common Council previously had 

observed in making decisions concerning wages, hours, 

and working conditions for the city’s employees. (See 

appendix A.) This system had been undergoing a gradual 

change during the previous two decades as a result of 

increasing union pressure and influence. Before 

continuing it would be well to briefly review earlier 

developments.

History of public employee unions in Milwaukee

Labor unions have had a strong foothold in private 

and public employment in the Milwaukee area for many 

years.4 The first effort in organizing public employees 

occurred in 1919, when city employees took steps to 

form the Milwaukee Employees’ Federation. Sixty-five 

employees met in August and one of the decisions made 

was whether the organization would affiliate with the 

American Federation of Labor (AFL) or remain independent. With the efforts of the Milwaukee Federated

Trades Council, an organization known as the Milwaukee 

City and County Civil Service Employees’ Union was 

affiliated with the AFL. The charter for this new 

organization was presented approximately 1 month after 

the first meeting in August.

At about the same time, the firemen of the city were 

organizing. In April of 1920, the local group of the 

International Association of Fire Fighters reported that 

they had reached a membership of more than 50 percent 

of the 585 men in the Fire Department. The Milwaukee 

Policemen’s Protective Association, which did not refer 

to itself as a labor union for many years, has been in 

existence since 1909.

A decline of labor union activity in Milwaukee during 

the 1920’s affected public employees even more than 

those in private industry. Renewed efforts to organize 

city employees did not occur until the 1930’s. Industrial 

unions were extremely active in Milwaukee during the 

organizing period of the 1930’s and in most cases the 

city administration was sympathetic to their interests 

and objectives. Private industrial unions had gained a 

strong foothold in local industries in earlier years, and 

the favorable national and state legislation of the 1930’s 

gave them the final push that they needed. For these 

reasons, together with a sympathetic public attitude 

toward unions, interest in. the unionization of public 

employees in Milwaukee was soon to follow.

The year 1934 saw renewed interest in the organizing 

efforts among the city’s laborers, and the Federal Labor 

Union, Local 17710, was established within the AFL 

organization. In the same year the staff of the 

Milwaukee Public Library organized as the Staff Association. This group later became a chapter in Local No. 2 

of the American Federation of State, County and 

Municipal Employees’ Union (AFSCME). The AFSCME 

had started with a small group of Wisconsin State 

employees who met on May 10, 1932, in Madison to 

establish an AFL organization for State employees. The 

charter was issued by the AFL on May 16, 1932, as 

Federal Labor Union 18213. Known initially as the 

“Wisconsin State Administrative Employees Association” the local’s name was later changed to 

“Wisconsin State Employees Association.” In December 

1935, this group, together with other government locals 

(State, county, and municipal) meeting in Chicago, 

formed the AFSCME as an autonomous union for State 

and local government employees within the American 

Federation of Government Employees (AFL). In 

October 1936, on the recommendation of the AFGE, 

AFSCME was chartered as a separate international union 

within the AFL.

The first organizing efforts of AFSCME in Milwaukee 

were reported in January, 1937; the president of the

2

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
new organization reported that 2,000 employees already 

had joined the union since October 1936. However, 

Local 17710, which had reported a membership of 

nearly 600 in 1934, had been disbanded; this accounted, 

in part, for the claimed AFSCME membership. By the 

start of World War II, there were 11 active chapters in 

Local No. 2 of AFSCME.

In 1945, 22 county and city municipal unions in the 

Milwaukee area formed the Milwaukee County District 

Council. These unions which were affiliated with the 

AFL and AFSCME (AFL) also had joined the Wisconsin 

State Federation of Labor and the Milwaukee Federated 

Trades Council.

The old United Public Workers of America (CIO) also 

was very active among city employees in the 1940’s.

The strength of GCEOC was centered in the Garbage 

and Forestry Bureaus of the Department of Public 

Works, where two locals were established. They were 

Local No. 1203 representing employees of the Garbage 

Bureau and Local No. 1087 representing employees in 

the Forestry Bureau. These locals retained their designations when they were absorbed into the AFSCME 

following the merger of the AFL and CIO in 1955.

The Milwaukee Government Service League was 

founded in 1935. It was organized “to support good 

government and to protect the best interests of the 

community at large through the maintenance and 

promotion of the highest standards of public service.” 

Labor unions looked on the league as a “company 

union” and referred to it as a form of “ cheap 

unionism.” The League reached its peak membership of

7,000 in 1937, when its primary objective was the 

establishment of an adequate pension plan for its 

members in the five taxing units. Following 1937, when 

the Employees’ Retirement System was adopted, the 

League annually made requests for a group life insurance 

program, sick leave benefits, pension improvements, and 

salary increases.

By the late 1950’s, the following labor unions and 

employee organizations were active on behalf of city 

employees and “unofficially” represented their members 

in wage hearings before the Finance Committee of the 

Common Council:

District Council 48, (and its affiliated locals), American

Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

(AFL-CIO)

Local 17, Building Service Employees’ International Union

(AFL-CIO)

Local 195, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

(AFL-CIO)

Local 311, International Union of Operating Engineers

(AFL-CIO)

Local 125-B, International Brotherhood of Firemen and

Oilers (AFL-CIO)

Local 200, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (AFLCIO)

Local 494, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

(AFL-CIO)

Local 215, Milwaukee Fire Fighters’ Association, International Association of Fire Fighters (AFL-CIO)

Local 1037, Uniformed Pilots and Marine Engineers Association, International Association of Fire Fighters (AFL-CIO)

Auto Mechanics Lodge 510, International Association of

Machinists (AFL-CIO)

Building Trades Council (and its affiliated locals) (AFL-CIO)

Policemen’s Protective Association

Milwaukee Government Service League

City and County Public Service Employees Union (Independent)

Association of Graduate and Registered Engineers of Milwaukee

Milwaukee City Employees Association

Developments during the 1940's

Collective bargaining by public employee unions in 

the early 1940’s was new to Milwaukee and the city had 

not established procedures for officially recognizing the 

unions.5 The Wagner Act (1934) and the Wisconsin 

Labor Relations Act (1937) did not cover employees of 

State and local governments. In the absence of formal 

machinery with which to handle union problems, the 

Finance Committee of the Common Council met with 

union and employee organization representatives to hear 

their requests. Procedurally, this traditional system 

called for the committee to hold public hearings on the 

budget every year. Employee unions (although not officially recognized by the city) appeared before the 

committee to present their views and requests, which the 

Finance Committee then considered. The requests were 

referred to the Personnel Department, which prepared 

written reports and recommendations. After public 

release by the committee, these reports provided some 

basis for discussion and did resolve a great many issues. 

The committee hearings, however, did not provide a 

setting for give and take discussions in which there could 

be an attempt to reconcile all conflicting views and find 

some common ground. The major responsibility of the 

committee was formulating the city’s budget; labor 

relations was secondary. Changes in wages and working 

conditions recommended by the Finance Committee and 

approved by the Common Council were enacted as 

ordinances. The Finance Committee also was responsible 

for handling grievances and reclassification of jobs. The 

City Service Commission, whose administration and 

examination divisions controlled the hiring and firing of 

city employees, was the only agency which had a close 

relationship with the city’s labor force.

Following a series of militant labor disputes in the 

period 194345 that resulted in strikes, the Common

3

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Council took the first major step toward improving the 

cumbersome system, when, in July 1945, it established the 

position of Classification Examiner in the City Service 

Commission.6 This office would handle all problems 

dealing with classifications and wage inequities that 

once had been the responsibility of the Finance Committee.7

At the same time the City Service Commission 

established a procedure relating to job classifications. 

This procedure, which is found in Section 7 of Rule II of 

the City Service Commission rules, provides that:

“disagreements between an employee and the city

resulting from grievances or the interpretation or application of established rules governing classification and

closely related matters shall be handled by the employee

or his representative, through established supervisory channels up to and including the designated head of the department concerned. Failing prompt and satisfactory action, the employee or his representative may appeal the

disagreement to the City Service Commission for investigation and adjustment when the Commission has jurisdiction over the position involved. The decision of the City

Service Commission shall be final and where re-classification to a different class is decided upon a report shall be

submitted to the Common Council and the classification

shall become effective on the beginning of the first payroll period following approval by the Common Council.”

The first classification report was submitted by the 

examiner’s office on April 12, 1946. The large number 

o f classification grievances, approximately 1,400, 

covered the entire range of 5,900 city positions. The 

grievants were represented in some instances by department heads and unions or by combinations of union, 

department heads, and aldermen, or by unions alone. 

The report included a section on the salaries for 

comparable job classifications in other major cities and a 

thorough analysis of each job in each department. The 

report recommended that the 65 pay ranges in the 1946 

salary ordinance be reduced to 37 for 1947. The proposed pay ranges eliminated some of the worst overlaps 

among previous pay ranges. All classifications were allocated in standard three-step or five-step ranges. In the 

1946 salary ordinance ranges had one to seven steps. Positions involving clerical, administrative, and technical 

duties and responsibilities were placed in five-step ranges. 

A second group involving trades, labor, custodial, and 

public safety duties and responsibilities were placed in 

three-step ranges. The report further recommended that 

provision be made for recruitment at a rate above the 

minimum of the pay range. The significance of this 

report was that for the first time in the history of Milwaukee city government, a comprehensive examination 

of wages and job descriptions was made. The report had

a great influence on the correction of the inequities and 

helped to foster better labor relations.

Developments during the 1950's

As a result of increased union pressure beginning in 

1950, a joint labor-management committee was charged 

with developing a new uniform grievance procedure.8 In 

July 1954, the committee submitted its report to the 

Finance Committee which accepted it. In turn, it was 

referred to the Common Council, which, in February 

1955, adopted an ordinance giving the City Service Commission the responsibility for establishing the program 

and procedures. The ordinance designated the City 

Service Commission as the official agency for settling 

employee complaints or* requests not involving changes 

in salaries, fringe benefits, or overtime allowance, and 

involving other matters requiring action by the Common 

Council or the Board of Estimates as prescribed in the 

city service law. It further provided that in cases 

involving the public library, the public museum, and the 

employees’ retirement system, the final appeal would be 

to their respective governing boards rather than to the 

City Service Commission.

A new grievance manual pointed out that the exceptions to the procedure were (1) salaries and wages,

(2) fringe benefits, (3) overtime assignments and overtime allowances, (4) position classification, and (5) 

employment status (discharge, suspension, reduction), 

all of which would be handled under other established 

procedures. The new procedure was not to apply to the 

Fire and Police Departments. Basically, the procedure 

provided for five steps and had definite time limits for 

moving the cases from one step to the next, and, if 

necessary, to final action by the commission or by one 

of the other designated boards or commissions.

A union dues check-off procedure was approved in 

1954.9 In September 1956, a representative of GCEOC 

(CIO) requested that the Common Council permit dues 

check-off and suggested a procedure whereby the unions 

would allocate the dues collected by the city. He 

pointed out that for many years both CIO and AFL 

organizations had asked that the Common Council adopt 

a dues check-off system but that they were always put 

off because of the administrative problems involved. No 

action was taken for the 1955 budget year, but further 

consideration was given to the union’s suggested procedure. In June 1955, the Finance Committee approved a 

union dues payroll deduction procedure which subsequently was adopted by the Common Council to 

become effective on January 1,1956. The procedure (1) 

required that the unions supply payroll deduction 

authorization cards; (2) authorized the City of Milwaukee Employees Union Dues Trustees to receive and

4

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
accept union dues deducted from city payrolls; (3) 

directed the city for and on behalf of a requesting union 

to pay such dues to the City of Milwaukee Employees’ 

Union Dues Trust Account; and (4) released the city 

from all liability or claims by reason of such payroll 

deductions and payment to the trust fund.

In 1958, a joint labor-management committee was 

formed to make recommendations on health-medical 

insurance benefits. It also is interesting to note that in 

one instance there were documents carrying the signatures of members of the Water Department, the

AFSCME, and the City Service Commission. The parties 

in 1951 had been interested in expanding in-service 

training programs in that department. Since a number of 

unions represented employees in the Water Department, 

there was a question as to which one would carry on 

discussion with city representatives. The employees 

decided to have an election among themselves and Local 

952 of the AFSCME was elected to carry on further 

discussions. The in-service training program finally 

agreed to covered three classifications, and for each the 

term “Statement of Understanding” was used.

— F O O TN O T E S—

1 By State Statute 62.05(2)C, first class city is defined as any

city of over 150,000 inhabitants. However, the city must change

its city charter in accordance with 62.05(2)C and the mayor

must proclaim the change.

2 The civil service law of the city of Milwaukee was originally

enacted by the Wisconsin Legislature in 1895. After being

amended several times, it was repealed and reenacted in 1919

and has been amended in several particulars since that date.

Sections 63.18 to 63.53 now form the civil service law applicable

to cities of the first class. (Milwaukee being at present the only

such city).

3 Among the employees excepted by section 63.27 are “all

members of the... Fire and Police Departments.” Although not

covered by section 63.18 through 65.33, Fire and Police Department personnel fall within the ambit of section 65.05 of the

•Statutes, which relates to adoption of the city budget. Section

65.05 (8) states that the adoption of the budget shall determine

the amount of taxes for the ensuing year, and section 65.05 (9)

provides ‘The compensation rates of pay and the number of

positions established in the budget shall determine the compensation to be paid and the number of positions for the ensuing

year. . . ”

Furthermore section 62.13 of the Statutes provides for a

board of fire and police commissioners which has the power to

organize and supervise the Fire and Police Departments and to

prescribe regulations and rules thereof. This section also provides

that the salaries of chiefs and subordinates shall be fixed by the

Common Council.

4 For an account o f the history of organized labor in

Milwaukee see Thomas W. Gavett, “Development of the Labor

Movement in Milwaukee.” Madison, Wise.: The University of

Wisconsin Press, 1965.

5 For a history of the city’s labor relations during this period

and earlier see Edwin Layne Cling, “Industrial Labor Relations

Policies and Practices in Municipal Government, Milwaukee,

Wisconsin.” Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Northwestern

University, 1957. Also see Joel A. D’Alba, “Administering a

Collective Bargaining Agreement in the Public Sector, Milwaukee, Wisconsin-A Case Study.” Unpublished M. A. dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology, 1969.

6 The first Classification Examiner, Robert Gamier was

appointed on February 26,1946. He subsequently was appointed

to the position of City Personnel Director and Secretary to the

City Service Commission on May 12, 1958, and is serving

presently the city of Milwaukee in that capacity. He also was

named the City’s first Chief Negotiator in September, 1964, and

currently is a member of the city’s bargaining team.

7 The committee did not have the time to give these problems

much attention. The usual procedure was for the committee to

drop one job classification and add one more to the growing list.

8 The city’s first formal grievance procedure was established

in August 1945, during a period when union representatives had

threatened strike action. Although well intentioned, the procedure was never used because of the way in which it operated and

because the unions had not been consulted and given an opportunity to participate in its development.

9 The first request for a dues check-off system had been made

in 1940 by the AFSCME. The City Comptroller objected

because of administrative problems and an opinion of the City

Attorney’s office was that such action could not be accomplished without proper ordinances and resolutions. Although

similar requests were made subsequently, real efforts to establish

a dues check-off system did not come unitl late in 1954. In the

meantime union officials had collected union dues on city time

without any objection by supervisors or the City Service Commission.

5

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1959 Developments

City's formal wage hearing procedures

By 1959, hearing procedures and schedules for 

conferring on wages, hours, and conditions of employment had been formalized by resolution. Bargaining 

units, although not officially recognized and specified, 

were reasonably well understood. Union representatives 

met with city representatives. In deference to governmental traditions, these meetings were identified as 

“public hearings,” rather than “collective bargaining 

sessions.”

Following the deadline date for receiving requests for 

salary adjustments and changes in fringe benefits, the 

Finance Committee scheduled a series of first round 

wage hearings to give unions and other employee 

representatives an opportunity to explain their requests 

and present data and arguments to support their case. 

Each union was scheduled separately for these appearances.

The technical staff of the classification division of 

the City Service Commission studied the various requests 

and analyzed them in the light of intercity and local 

wage comparisons, published wage data, union contracts, 

and information and data presented by city departments, citizens’ groups, and labor unions at Finance 

Committee hearings. On the basis of this analysis, the 

City Personnel Director and the Classification Division 

Supervisor proposed a tentative pay plan and changes in 

fringe benefits.

The city’s approach to wage determination could be 

termed as the “prepared package” technique, similar in 

many respects to the positive elements of the system 

developed by the General Electric Company. This 

technique relied heavily on staff research and evaluation 

of all wage and fringe benefit data, job studies, and other 

methods in arriving at a complete detailed set of analyses 

and recommendations intended to answer all union 

requests. The intent was to preserve a highly unified and 

integrated wage and fringe benefit system.

Proposals, along with the special studies, were 

transmitted to the Finance Committee for its review and 

determination, culminating in a recommendation to the 

Common Council. In this process, a second round of 

individually scheduled wage hearings was held at which 

unions could support or rebut the staff recommendations and present further data and arguments. In some

instances, a large militant union might be given several 

separate hearings. Invariably, the unions resorted to a 

great deal of political pressure.

City grants official recognition to labor unions

Although city officials had not extended formal 

recognition to labor unions, the unions had been taking 

an increasing part in the process of establishing the city’s 

personnel policy. Not until early in 1959 did the city 

first officially sanction public employee unions. The 

action came after the 3,600 members of District Council 

48, AFSCME, in a strike vote on December 2, 1958, 

authorized their executive board to call a strike if the 

city failed to meet union demands: a collective bargaining contract, or, as a minimum, recognition of District 

Council 48 as bargaining representative in city departments where its members were in the majority; a 3% 

percent or a 7 cent-per-hour minimum wage increase; 4 

weeks’ vacation after 20 years; and improved hospital 

coverage.1 The Common Council had voted a 2-percent 

salary increase with a minimum of 4 cents an hour,when 

it had approved the 1959 budget on November 20.

The opinion of the City Attorney in 1959 was that 

the city could not authorize a contract.2 City officials 

believed that a strike could be averted if the Common 

Council approved a union recognition resolution. The 

Mayor, on November 28, had recommended that the 

aldermen consider passage of a resolution recognizing 

District Council 48 as a bargaining unit and make add itio n al contributions for Blue Cross-Blue Shield 

coverage. District Council 48 officials were willing to 

recognize any other labor union representing a majority 

of the employees in their claims departments.

In a move to avoid a strike the Finance Committee on 

January 2, 1959, voted to recommend a cost-of-living 

wage adjustment and an increase in the city’s contribution for family hospital-surgical insurance coverage. The 

committee also agreed that it later would recommend a 

resolution granting formal recognition of labor unions 

and other employee groups. The possibility of a strike 

was eased when the bargaining committee of District 

Council 48 agreed to recommend that the membership 

accept the latest proposals. The union had altered its 

request on the wage increase and sought a cost-of-living

6

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
increase in addition to the 2-percent increase voted by 

the Council on November 20.

On January 6, the Common Council adopted the 

committee’s recommendation for (1) a monthly cost-ofliving increase of $2.25 effective in July if the Milwaukee Consumer Price Index rose by 1.1 points 

between May 1958 and May 1959 (the same increase as 

a year earlier) and (2) an additional city contribution 

of $2.08 a month toward the cost of family coverage by 

Blue Cross-Blue Shield insurance. Still to be settled was 

agreement on the pending union recognition resolution 

asked by the union. The main point of difference was a 

clause that would allow the union to review the working 

rules and regulations issued by city department and 

bureau heads.

The union’s strike threat was finally ended on 

February 17, when the Common Council, after long 

debate, approved the union recognition resolution that 

was recommended by the Finance Committee. This resolution recognized the right of city employees to join 

broadly defined labor organizations of their own choice 

and to be represented in hearings before the Finance 

Committee and Common Council dealing with wages, 

hours, and conditions of employment. It also granted 

union representatives exclusive time to make appearances before Finance Committee wage hearings and 

to be given time off with pay to appear at hearings. 

Salaries and fringe benefits would continue to be established by ordinance and the Finance Committee would 

continue to act as a Labor Policy Committee. Employees 

were protected against arbitrary discipline, discharge, 

and layoff contrary to civil service. Labor organizations 

were given the privilege of continued dues check-off. An 

earlier provision requiring unions to file a statement of 

their membership strength was softened to make filing 

of such a report voluntary. Dropped from the resolution 

was a controversial requirement that department heads 

submit directives, orders, and rules to union representatives in advance.

This resolution put into writing what had been unwritten procedures previously followed by the Common 

Council and Finance Committee in dealing with city employees and their unions on wages, hours, working 

conditions.

State Legislature passes Section 111.70

In the same year, the State Legislature passed the first 

p art o f Section 111.70, Wisconsin Statutes, that 

extended the right of collective bargaining to municipal 

employees in Wisconsin.l *3 (See appendix A.) This new 

statute conferred upon employees of local units of 

government the right to form and join labor organizations and to be represented by such labor organizations 

in conferences and negotiations with their municipal 

employers on questions of wages, hours, and conditions 

of employment. It also provided that such municipal 

employees would have the right to refrain from any and 

all such activities, if they so wished.

A municipal employer was defined as any city, 

county, village, town, metropolitan sewerage district, 

school district or any other political subdivision of the 

State. Municipal employees were defined in the statute 

to include any employee of the municipality, except city 

and village policemen, sheriffs deputies, and county 

traffic officers. This statute, however, did not provide 

for any administrative or enforcement powers and therefore had little effect on existing labor relations in Milwaukee.

Late in 1961, the Legislature amended Section 

111.70 with the additions of subsections (l)(c) and (4) 

that provided a comprehensive labor relations code 

governing the conduct of municipal employer-employee 

relations. This broad new amendment, which became 

law on January 31, 1962, charged the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board (WERB)4 with the administration and enforcement of Section 111.70. The WERB was 

empowered to prevent prohibited labor practices, 

mediate disputes between municipal employees and their 

employers, conduct collective bargaining elections, and 

initiate factfinding when negotiations were deadlocked 

or when either party refused to meet and negotiate in 

good faith. This amendment also required the recording 

of negotiated settlements in the form of an ordinance, a 

resolution, or an agreement. Strikes by municipal 

employees were prohibited, although no enforcement 

machinery was set up for the no-strike provision. Subsequently, the 1965 Legislature enacted subsection (5), 

which stated that any municipal employer could employ 

a labor negotiator to represent it in bargaining negotiations.

— F O O TN O TES—

l ln 1957, District Council 48 had called off a threatened

strike on November 11 when the Finance Committee agreed to

the union’s request for further hearings on 1958 wage and fringe

benefits. The city further agreed to consider the union’s

proposed revisions in hearing procedures. The union proposed a

“Labor Advisory Committee’’ to work under the Finance

Committee and conduct complete hearings on a continuing basis.

It also proposed that the city’s wage proposals submitted annually by the City Personnel Director and die Budget Supervisor be

released to interested parties at least 30 days in advance of the

public hearings on the budget.

7

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 The City Attorney in November 1956 had given an opinion

that the city could not enter into a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union or agree to a union shop for city

employees. The Common Council’s Finance Committee had

asked for the opinion after District Council 48 made a request

for a formal collective bargaining agreement as one of several 1957

wage demands submitted to the Finance Committee earlier. The

union wanted exclusive bargaining rights and a union shop in

each city department and bureau where its members were in a

majority. Other unions did not object to the idea of a written

agreement but objected to the idea of exclusive representation

for the AFSCME.

3 In 1951, the legislature had passed a bill, later vetoed by the

Governor, declaring that it was the public policy of the State

to promote better relationships between local units of government and their employees by according them the right to form

and join labor unions and to encourage mutual understandings

between the parties on matters relating to wages, hours, and

conditions of employment. It stated that it was unfair labor

practice for a governmental unit to interfere with employees in

exercising their rights or to discourage membership in any labor

organization by means of discrimination in the hiring, tenure, or

other conditions of employment. The bill denied employees the

right to strike. It further provided that the parties could jointly

petition the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board to appoint

a conciliator to help resolve the dispute when collective consideration failed.

The feeling was that if the legislature had excluded police and

firemen the Governor might have signed the bill.

4The WERB was established in 1937 to administer the

Wisconsin Labor Relations Act adopted that year by the State

legislature.

8

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1960 Developments

In 1960, the Common Council adopted a completely 

new integrated pay plan for 1961 that covered nearly all 

em ployees, including police and fire department 

uniformed personnel.1 This plan, recommended by the 

Finance Committee after a series of meetings with 

employee groups on 1961 wage requests, was the result 

of two studies.2 The first of these was made by the 

Public Administration Service (PAS); it covered classes 

in the top 10 pay ranges (24-33) of the old salary 

schedule. (See table 26.) The second study was 

conducted by the Classification Division; it involved 

classes allocated to the remaining pay ranges of the old 

plan (1-23). The resulting integrated salary plan included 

salary adjustments ranging from Oto 11 percent; the average was 4 percent. Union representatives agreed generally with the wage recommendations proposed by the 

City Personnel Director. Requests for general wage increases submitted earlier by unions and by other employee groups had ranged from a cost-of-living adjustment to a pay increase of 5 percent or $35 a month 

minimum asked by District Council 48. Chief objection 

to the new pay plan came from the Policemen’s Protective Association, which had asked for a salary range of 

$475 to $550 a month for patrolmen. Instead, the new 

plan provided a range of $445 to $527 a month, which 

amounted to an increase of approximately $31 a month 

for patrolmen. Pay raises for other police ranks ranged 

from about $14 to $18 a month.

This new integrated pay plan, the first comprehensive 

revision in salary schedules since 1946, provided for 27 

pay ranges with a spread of approximately 20 percent 

between the minimum and the maximum rates of each 

pay range, the maximum step being attained after 4 

years of service. (See tables 27-29.) Each range included 

five different pay steps; increments were typically 4.5 

percent above the previous step rate.

In some cases, where wage data and prevailing 

practice strongly indicated the need for a narrower 

range, provision was made for new employees in selected 

classes to start above the minimum rate. Provisions for 

additional pay for fire and police classes that were 

characteristic of previous pay schedules were eliminated. 

The special factors that had necessitated such payments 

were considered to be reflected in the 1961 pay range 

allocations of these classes.

In addition to the revised pay plan, the Common 

Council also approved recommendations to adopt a 

group life insurance program for all employees (except 

prevailing rate employees) and to increase shift differential rates by 2-cents-an-hour, effective pay period 

1, 1961. The unions and other employee groups also had 

asked for improved vacation, sick leave, and health and 

welfare benefits. Also included were requests for new 

longevity and terminal leave pay benefits. The Milwaukee Fire Fighters’ Association again requested 

reduction in their workweek from 63 to 56 hours.

Garbage collectors strike

On July 6, the city’s 340 garbage collectors, members 

of Local 1203 of District Council 48, went on strike to 

protest alleged inhumane working conditions.3 The 

union had submitted a list of working rules and departmental regulations to the Commissioner of Public Works 

for discussion and was seeking a written agreement 

covering work rules. The City Attorney continued to 

maintain that such written agreements would be illegal. 

The strike ended on July 8, when the workers voted to 

accept the recommendation of their union bargaining 

committee that they return to work while a factfinding 

committee, as proposed by the Mayor and approved by 

the Common Council, investigated their grievances.

-F O O T N O T E S -

1 Excluded were prevailing wage employees, “exempt”

employees, and members of boards and commissions. These

groups are not within scope of this report.

2The city had made a major revision of its pay plan in 1946,

when it reduced the number of pay ranges for 1947 from 65 to

37. All classes were allocated to three-step or five-step ranges as

substitutes for flat rates and ranges up to seven steps. In general,

clerical, administrative, and technical classes were placed in fivestep ranges; trades, labor, custodial, and public safety jobs were

assigned to three-step ranges. During the intervening 13 years,

the city had found it necessary to provide additional compensation for certain jobs and certain classes by means of footnotes to

existing ranges and special provisions in the salary ordinance in

order to maintain appropriate relationships and job differentials.

By 1960, 18 separate footnotes and 14 separate paragraphs

provided extra compensation for 121 different job classes and

about 3,000 employees. This meant that the basic pay plan was

no longer appropriate for 35 percent of all city employees and

had to be amended with a variety of provisions to meet the

needs of the service.

3 The last strike of garbage collection workers in 1951 lasted

one week. All other city strikes in the previous 20 years also

included garbage department workers. The longest on record

lasted for 31 days in November and December 1943. Brief

strikes occurred in 1945 (twice), 1948, and 1950.

9

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1961 Developments

No general wage adjustment was approved for 1962. 

Sick leave provisions for general employees were 

liberalized for 1962. Accumulation of 90 days at full 

pay was continued, and unlimited accumulation beyond 

90 days was allowed at half pay.

In connection with the Finance Committee’s 1962 

budget hearings, the City Personnel Director reported 

that the most generous adjustment that could be 

supported would be approximately 2 percent; this 

analysis was based on surveys of wages and fringe 

benefits in 27 local firms and of 27 cities having a 

population of 400,000 or more. He further recommended that it would probably be advisable to delay 

1962 salary adjustments 6,9, or over 12 months until a 4 

or 5 percent adjustment could be justified.

City's cost-of-living adjustment machinery based on

CPI

A factor provided by ordinance to be considered in 

the establishment of salaries for Milwaukee City employees was the Milwaukee Consumer Price Index, 

prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Financed 

by the city. Two paragraphs in the 1961 salary 

ordinance read as follows:

“It is hereby declared to be the policy and intention of

the Common Council that the rates of pay in this

ordinance shall be flexible in character and subject to

change annually in accordance with changes in the

Consumers’ Price Index for Milwaukee prepared by the

United States Department of Labor. In future years

monthly rates of pay shall be increased or decreased $2.25

or fractional part thereof for each point change in the

Index for Milwaukee or fractional part thereof as of

August 15 prior to the budget to be effective on the

following January 1st. Where the index has not changed

more than six-tenths of one point (.6) since the last announced change which was made effective under the terms

of this ordinance, no change shall be made. The salaries of

part-time members of boards and commissions and employees whose compensation is determined in accordance

with the prevailing wage as listed in the city salary

ordinances, are excluded from these provisions.”

“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Common

Council that salary changes (either upward or downward)

made other than related to the cost-of-living adjustment

factor may be predicated on such additional factors of

practical pay plan problems as recruitment, general

increases in the standard of living and the establishment of

proper salary differentials between various classes of

positions, as well as appraisals of and changes in duties and

responsibilities of various occupations.”

In accordance with the existing ordinance provisions, 

the City Personnel Director pointed out that there was 

no need to make any general salary adjustment based on 

the CPI as the index was up less than 0.6 of a point 

(from 128.9 in August 1960 to 129.2 in August 1961).1

Following the October 20 hearing, the executive 

director of District Council 48 declared that a wage 

adjustment was due and necessary and that unionized 

employees would push their demands for a salary boost. 

He further noted that the City Personnel Director’s 

report was not conclusive and that there appeared to be 

some area for bargaining. District Council 48 had 

requested an across-the-board pay hike of $15 a month, 

a contribution of 5-cents-an-hour per employee for the 

operation of a union-operated medical clinic, and other 

improved fringe benefits.

City rejects union demands

The Finance Committee’s proposed city budget for 

1962 was presented formally to the Common Council at 

a public hearing on November 10; the committee 

recommended the rejection of the union’s pay and 

benefits requests. The executive director of District 

Council 48, in discussing the proposed budget at the 

hearings, charged that the Finance Committee had not 

acted in good faith by turning down requests for a 

general pay increase and other fringe benefits. He said 

that the union had bargained in good faith and had 

scaled down its requests to a 4 percent wage increase 

effective July 1, and a city contribution of 2%-cents-anhour to the union’s health and welfare fund for its Hoan 

Medical Center program. He served notice on the city 

that District Council 48 was calling a mass meeting of 

union employees to explain to the membership what had 

transpired in negotiations and to ask for further instructions from the members.

Union employees at this meeting on November 13 

instructed negotiators to seek additional bargaining 

meetings with the Finance Committee. They further 

voted that if negotiations did not result in an agreement 

on a wage increase, the bargaining committee should 

take “any and all actions they deem necessary in the 

best interests of the affiliated locals.” The executive 

director of District Council 48, in commenting on this 

motion, said that it was not a strike vote.

10

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The union’s request to the Finance Committee 

chairman for a resumption of negotations was introduced on the floor of the Common Council the following day and then was referred to the Finance Committee. The Committee’s Chairman said that it was 

impossible to call a special meeting of the committee 

before the day on which the Common Council was 

scheduled to vote on the 1962 budget and that it would

1 Historically, the city’s policy of annual cost-of-living

adjustments had originated in 1943, when a special committee

representing the five major separate taxing units in Milwaukee

County got together and worked out a uniform plan for an

annual automatic cost-of-living adjustment based on a year-toyear change in the BLS Consumer Price Index for Milwaukee.

The five taxing units included the city, the county, the school

board, the Milwaukee Area Vocational School, and the Sewerage

Commission. In 1954, because of a change in the base of the

BLS index from 1935-39=100 to 1947-49=100, the salary

ordinance formula was changed to provide for an automatic

increase or decrease in monthly rates of $2.25 or fractional part

thereof for each 1.0 index change or fractional part thereof

between successive August 15’s and to become effective the

following January 1. When the index had not changed more than

be handled at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The 

Common Council subsequently approved the 1962 city 

budget. Not a single amendment to grant a wage increase 

was introduced.

The Finance Committee at its regularly scheduled 

meeting on the following week closed the door on 

further wage negotiations by voting unanimously to 

place the union’s request on file.

0.6 point, no change would be made. (See first paragraph of

1961 salary oridinance cited in text.)

In 1952, after Milwaukee was not included in the revised

sample of areas from compiling the National Consumer Price

Index, the city contracted with the BLS for a continuation of an

index for Milwaukee. In 1963, Milwaukee was included again the

BLS sample of CPI cities.

In 1954, a second paragraph also was added to the annual

salary ordinance, the same as the second paragraph for 1961

cited in the text. Both paragraphs were included in the salary

ordinances from 1955 through 1965. The effect of the second

paragraph was that the exact proportion of the cost-of-living

adjustment to the total salary adjustment was not identified

separately after 1955.

11

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1962 Developments

Subsections (1) (c) and (4) of Section 111.70, 

Wisconsin Statutes, became effective on February 7,

1962. (See appendix A.) This major amendment 

required municipal employers to bargain with duly 

certified or recognized bargaining agents of public 

employees’, mediation and factfinding were to be administered by the Wisconsin Employment Relations 

Board (WERB). Passage in 1959 of the original Section

111.70, which had lacked administrative provisions, had 

not greatly affected labor relations during 1960 and 

1961.

W ERB hold first representation hearings for city employees

During the spring and summer of 1962, the WERB 

held hearings on petitions from 13 labor organizations 

asking for certification as collective bargaining representatives of city employees. Requests for recognition as 

collective bargaining agents submitted earlier in 

February to the Finance Committee by District Council 

48, Local 125B, International Brotherhood of Firemen 

and Oilers, and the Professional Policemen’s Protective 

Association were refused. Petitions submitted later by 

several other unions were turned down also. In the 

course of the WERB hearings numerous questions arose 

involving overlapping claims of jurisdiction, claims 

involving the designation of craft employees under terms 

of the new law, and requests for determinations as to 

confidential and supervisory employees to be excluded 

from the proposed bargaining units. At the request of 

the Board and under instructions from the Finance 

Committee,1 the Personnel Department’s Classification 

Division prepared seven volumes of reports, tables, and 

related information for use by the WERB. By December 

31,1962, the Board had not made any final determinations.

City hears union demands for 1963

The first hearing on wage requests for 1963 was held 

before the Finance Committee on September 5. 

Demands for wage increases covering general employees 

ranged from 4 to 8 percent. The biggest wage hike 

request was a flat 30-cents-an-hour (slightly more than 8 

percent) by District Council 48, the city’s largest union,

which claimed a membership of about 4,000 city employees. District Council 48 also asked for a contribution of 5-cents-ari-hour per employee toward a proposed 

union health plan, more liberal vacations, 4 hours callback pay instead of 2, increased night differential pay, 

extra pay for regularly scheduled work on weekends, 

double pay for unscheduled work on Sundays and 

holidays, longevity pay, terminal leave pay, and an 

improved hospital and surgical insurance contract.

The Milwaukee Fire Fighters’ Association, Local 215, 

asked that salaries for firefighters be made comparable 

to the average of salaries paid by New York, Los 

Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle and that 

on-duty hours be reduced from 63 to 56 hours a week. 

The Policemen’s Protective Association, speaking for 

Police Department employees, requested a 5-percent salary increase and a separate pay plan providing additional 

increases for some ranks. Also included was a request for 

the creation of 81 positions of corporal, an intermediate 

rank between the patrolman and sergeant ranks.

Question of procedures snags wage hearing

At the outset of the hearings begun on September 5, 

the Finance Committee chairman said that the committee would follow the same procedures as in the past. 

The committee, he added, would continue to get recommendations and studies from the personnel department 

and would consider them along with requests from 

the unions before making a recommendation to the 

Common Council. He claimed that the procedure of 

holding public hearings at which union representatives 

were permitted to appear constituted collective bargaining. This procedure, he said, was not altered by the new 

State law guaranteeing the right of collective bargaining 

to municipal employees.

The executive director of District Council 48, on the 

other hand, contended that: such public hearings did not 

provide the proper procedural framework for true collective bargaining. The position of the union was that they 

could not permit the new State law to become a 

“mockery” by failing to insist on the give and take of 

across-the-table bargaining which was widely accepted in 

private labor-management relations. The executive director argued that the committee should negotiate by 

submitting counteroffers.

12

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Union seeks recourse through W ERB

On September 14, District Council 48 filed a complaint with the WERB charging that the city engaged in 

unfair labor practices and asked the WERB to set up 

factfinding into the city’s practices.. The complaint said 

that on July 1, the District Council had asked the 

Common Council to reopen negotiations with the union 

on wage increases for 1963 and that its requests was 

turned down by the Finance Committee. The complaint 

further asked the WERB to order the city to negotiate 

with the District Council. A union spokesman said that, 

although the city had said in the fall of 1961 it had no 

money for 1962 wage increases, it later granted raises to 

skilled “prevailing wage” employees in the spring of

1962 to keep them in line with union scales paid in the 

building construction industry.

The WERB, on October 15, dismissed the union’s 

complaint, ruling that the complaint, as well as its 

petition for factfinding, was filed prematurely. The 

Board chairman said that no election had been held to 

determine who would be the bargaining agent for city 

employees, and that the city had not recognized any 

union as bargaining agent for the city employees without 

an election.

City Personnel Director presents recommendations for

1963

In a meeting of the finance committee on October 

24, the City Personnel Director presented his customary 

two-volume comprehensive report on wages and benefits 

for 1963 in response to the requests by the employee 

organizations. He reported that a 3 to 4.5 percent general 

pay increase would be reasonable for city employees in

1963. He recommended that if the city granted an 

increase approaching 4.5 percent, it would be desirable 

to use a one-step increase for each range in the pay plan. 

He also pointed out that a $4,275 a month salary rate 

increase would be warranted on the basis of the salary 

ordinance requirement for a change in rates of pay in 

accordance with the change in the Consumer Price Index 

for Milwaukee.

The City Personnel Director further suggested eliminating some paid holidays, noting that city employees 

received 11 to 13 holidays, which greatly exceeded the 

number provided in private industry. He also recommended the elimination of all paid lunch periods, the 

end of the practice of paying city employees who were 

union officials while these officials were on union 

business, and elimination of the practice of providing 2- 

weeks’ pay by the city in addition to military pay for 

annual military training tours. The City Personnel Director’s recommendations were based on the city’s surveys

of wages and fringe benefits in 26 local firms and 27 

major cities having a population of 400,000 or more.

Traditional hearing procedures meet strong opposition

The Finance Committee concluded its pay hearings 

on Wednesday, November 7, in a stalemate over 

collective bargaining procedures with District Council 

48. The union demanded that the committee state what 

its recommendations would be so that the union, in 

turn, could make a counteroffer. The union claimed that 

the law required the city to bargain. The committee 

chairman replied that the committee, as in the past, could 

not make an offer and would not arrive at a conclusion 

until after the wage hearings were over. He said the 

committee would recommend pay changes to the 

Common Council in time for a public hearing on the 

budget and that the union had the right to make objections at th a t tim e. Because of the procedural 

disagreement the committee and the union failed to discuss the 1963 wage recommendations of the City 

Personnel Director.

A 1963 wage adjustment of one salary increment 

(averaging 4.48 percent) was recommended on November 8 by the Finance Committee. In other action, the 

committee recommended elimination of Columbus Day 

and Washington’s Birthday as holidays for general employees hired in the future. Present general employees 

would be given 2 extra days off with pay in lieu of the 

two holidays dropped. In addition, the committee recommended the creation of 90 positions of corporal in 

the Police Department. These posts would be filled by 

men performing the duties of acting desk sergeants and 

acting detectives and would receive $25 a month more 

than patrolmen.

At the public hearing on the 1963 budget before the 

Common Council on November 9, the executive director 

of District Council 48 contended that the new State law 

required “conferences and negotiations” between the 

city and employee unions. The hearings held by the 

Finance Committee, he said, were not negotiations. He 

requested a joint meeting with the committee and with 

three other unions before the budget was adopted on 

November 20. The other unions joining in the request 

were the Milwaukee Fire Fighters’ Association, Local 

125-B of the International Brotherhood of Firemen and 

Oilers, and Local 311 of the International Union of 

Operating Engineers.

City agrees to "confer and negotiate" on advice of City

Attorney

The Common Council on Tuesday, November 13, 

acting on advice of the City Attorney’s office, ordered

13

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
its Finance Committee to “confer and negotiate” with 

the unions representing city employees and to reconsider 

its previous recommendations for a wage increase, elimination of holidays, and reclassifications. Following this 

meeting the committee chairman announced that a 

meeting of the committee was scheduled for Friday 

morning, November 16.

The first formal bargaining session ever held between 

the aldermen and union representatives in Milwaukee 

took place on Friday, November 16, when 17 union 

representatives met with the Common Council’s Finance 

Committee. After more than 12 hours of negotiations, 

the city raised its wage offer to a 4 percent general wage 

increase. The Finance Committee, had earlier withdrawn 

its original recommendations for a 4.48 percent increase. 

It also offered to restore all but one-half day of holiday 

time and to provide an increase of 2-cents-an-hour in 

shift differential pay for second and third shifts. The 

union earlier in the day had rejected the city’s first offer 

of a 3 lA percent wage hike and the elimination of 5-3/4 

holidays. District Council 48 modified its wage demands 

to a raise of 20-cents-an-hour for some employees and 

28 cents for others (average of 7 to 8 percent). Initially 

the union had sought a flat 30-cents-an-hour increase. 

The unions also withdrew demands for longevity pay 

and terminal leave pay. They also offered to withdraw a 

request for 5-cents-an-hour in health benefits if the city 

would pick up the increased cost of health insurance the 

following year.

Other union demands, for double time for unscheduled and holiday work, 4 hours call-in pay instead of 2, 

time and one-quarter for all rotating shift work and 

Saturday and Sunday work, and numerous requests for 

reallocation of jobs were rejected by the committee. The 

committee also turned down requests by police for pay 

increased beyond 4 percent and a request by firemen for 

a cut in their workweek from 63 to 60 hours. Fire 

Fighters’ Local 215 initially had sought a reduction to 

56 hours.

Finance committee recommendations opposed

by two unions

Early on Saturday November 17, the committee 

recommended a one-step pay boost in 1963, after the 

city and two unions reached a stalemate over wage issues 

in an 18 hour bargaining session that ended at 3:25 a.m. 

that morning. The committee also recommended (1) 

elimination of two and a half holidays, with present 

employees getting 2 other days off instead; (2) approval 

of 90 positions of police corporal to start July 1, 1963;

(3) rejection of job reallocation requests by the unions;

(4) an increase in shift differential pay of 2 and 3 cents 

an hour; (5) 3 hours’ call-in pay; and (6) other minor 

changes.

Spokesmen for District Council 48 and Local 125-B 

accused the committee of breaking off negotiations with 

a compromise in sight. A member of the committee 

replied that the committee had negotiated in good faith 

and that a settlement could not be reached. He added 

that the committee had to act immediately, because the 

1963 budget had to be approved by the Common 

Council on the following Tuesday, November 20. The 

executive director of District Council 48 when called a 

general meeting of his union for Monday, November 19, 

for ratification or rejection of the wage offer.

City closes wage negotiations over District Council 48

objections

A request by District Council 48 to reopen 1963 

wage negotiations was rejected unanimously on Monday, 

November 19, by the Finance Committee. At a mass 

meeting later that night District Council 48 members 

passed a resolution authorizing the bargaining committee 

to take any action necessary to reopen negotiations. 

Included in the resolution was a rejection of the city’s 

proposals that holidays be reduced by 2% days, that 

overtime pay be reduced from 1.56 to time and one-half 

for some job categories, and that no reallocations be 

granted. The union’s bargaining committee earlier had 

accepted the city’s pay proposal of a 4.48 percent 

increase.

On Tuesday morning, November 20, District Council 

48 sought a writ of mandamus to compel the city to 

resume negotiations and a temporary restraining order to 

keep the Council from passing the budget later the same 

day in its proposed form. The circuit court judge, to 

whom the union’s application was assigned that morning, refused to sign on the basis that the Common 

Council had discretionary powers to reopen negotiations 

and that the court should not force it to do something it 

had a legal option to refuse. A request to the WERB 

asking for mediation also was made by the union, but 

the city refused to join in the request.

Later that same day the council adopted the 1963 

budget and the Finance Committee’s proposed wage and 

fringe package with one exception. Referred back to the 

Finance Committee was a proposal to establish a 

uniform time and one-half (1.5) premium overtime rate 

for all employees.

Joint policy and technical committees reestablished

During the year a Policy Committee of the five major

14

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Milwaukee area taxing units was reestablished, with 

representation from the city, county, School Board, 

Vocational School, and Sewerage Commission.2 The 

committee’s objective was to find ways of providing 

greater uniformity in wages and fringe benefits paid to 

public employees by essentially the same taxpayers. A 

Technical Committe also was formed with representation from the taxing units. The City Personnel

Director and the Classification Supervisor represented 

the city on this latter committee. Written reports were 

made by the Technical Committee transmitting a fringe 

benefit summary, salary data and definitions for seven 

“benchmark jobs,” salary data from local industry, and 

recommendations for better coordination on wage 

increases among the five units. Both committees decided 

to continue meeting and exchanging information in 

1963.

F O O T N O T E S

1A resolution designating the Finance Committee as the official Labor Policy Committee for the city was approved by the

Common Council in March. The resolution noted the need for

such a body to deal with the new law giving municipal employees collective bargaining rights. Under terms of the resolution, the Committee would represent the city in matters and

hearings before the WERB.

2 A committee representing the five major over-lapping taxing

units operating within the city limits was first established in

1942. On August 6, 1942 the Director of the Milwaukee

Vocational School proposed that a committee of representatives

from the city, county, Sewerage Commission, School Board, and

Board of Vocational and Adult Education study the question of

salary adjustments for public employees. One group of representatives was referred to as the Policy Committee and the other as

the Technical Committee. When work of the Technical Committee was completed, it resulted in an annual cost-of-living

salary adjustment (COLA) plan based on a year-to-year change in

the BLS Consumer Price Index for Milwaukee. This plan was

accepted by the legislative bodies of the various units and

became effective August, 1943.

In 1953, the Technical Committee was reestablished to alter

the COLA formula to conform to the BLS index change from

1935-39=100 to 1947-49=100. During the next 2 years the five

units discontinued their cost-of-living adjustment plans. The city

dropped the plan effective in 1956. In September 1956, the five

units agreed to reconvene the Technical Committee to coordinate salary increases for their employees. Public officials saw a

“whipsaw” effect take place when one of the units granted a

salary increase or additional benefits.

15

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1963 Developments

The year 1963 was a significant year in city labor relations, since it was Milwaukee’s first full year of 

experience in formal negotiations with certified unions 

under the provisions of Section 111.70 of the State 

Statutes.

W ERB holds representation elections for city employees

Representation elections conducted by the WERB on 

March 27 and 28 among Department of Public Works 

employees resulted in certification in April and May of 

six bargaining agents to represent 3,404 employees in 

the various bureaus of the Department of Public Works 

(See appendix B.) These included the following: (1) 

Local 17, Building Service Employees International 

Union (AFL-CIO); (2) City of Milwaukee Garbage 

Collection Laborers Independent Local Union; (3) Local 

195, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 

(AFL-CIO); (4) Local 494, International Brotherhood 

of Electrical Workers (AFL-CIO); (5) Local 125-B, International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers (AFL-CIO); 

(6) Milwaukee District Council 48 (and its appropriate 

affiliated locals) American Federation of State, County, 

and Municipal Employees (AFL-CIO).

On December 16, two more representation elections 

were held; one among fireboat pilots and marine engineers, and the other among fire alarm dispatchers in the 

Fire Department. Bargaining agents subsequently certified for these employees included: (1) Uniformed Pilots 

and Marine Engineers Association, Local 1037, International Association of Fire Fighters (AFL-CIO); and (2) 

Local 494, International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers (AFL-CIO). On October 16, the Milwaukee Fire 

Fighters Association Local 215, International Association of Fire Fighters (AFL-CIO), was granted recognition by Common Council resolution to represent 

nearly all other nonsupervisory Fire Department 

employees.1 (See appendix B.)

City prepares for 1963 negotiations

Early in the spring, the city began making arrangements for 1963 negotiations, when the Finance Committee set May 15, instead of June 15 as in the past, as the 

deadline for the Common Council to receive wage and 

fringe benefit requests for 1964 from unions and other 

employee groups. The committee, at the same time, 

"suggested starting wage negotiations early so that pay 

recommendations could be sent to the Common Council

by m id-Septem ber. Preliminary negotiations were 

scheduled tentatively for July and final hearings in 

September. The committee chairman said the earlier 

deadlines would allow certified unions time for factfinding if negotiations were deadlocked.

Initial union demands listed

On May 15, District Council 48, the city’s largest 

union, presented the Common Council with a demand 

for a 7 percent general wage increase with a minimum 

increase of 20-cents-an-hour. In addition to the wage 

increase demand, the union demanded the following 

fringe benefits:

(1) Improved vacation schedule to provide 3 weeks after 8

years of service, 4 weeks after 15 years, and 5 weeks after

25 years.

(2) Unlimited accumulation of sick leave.

(3) A differential of 15-cents-an-hour for second-shift workers

and 20 cents for third-shift workers (4 cents more on both

shifts).

(4) Payment by the city of the full cost of medical and surgicial insurance premiums, including major medical insurance premiums, and elimination of the $25 deductible

feature for hospital admissions.

(5) Double time pay for all unscheduled work on Saturdays

and Sundays.

(6) A maximum of 1 year disability leave at full pay for each

duty-incurred injury.

Local 125-B of the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers submitted similar demands.

Another demand coming from the Garbage Collection 

Laborers Independent Union was that garbage collection 

laborers be moved up three pay ranges—from a range of 

$393 to $464 a month to $445 to $527. They also asked 

for an added 25-cents-an-hour in addition to the requested reallocation and $5 a month longevity pay for 

each 5 years of service, up to a maximum of $25 a 

month.

Local 215 of the Milwaukee Fire Fighters’ Association presented a demand for a $50 a month pay 

increase for all fire personnel up to the rank of Deputy 

Chief. Another request was for cash overtime pay for all 

hours worked in excess of 2,000 a year, and a cut in the 

firefighter’s workweek from 63 to 56 hours. In addition, 

a request was made for 4 weeks’ vacation after 10 years’ 

service instead of 3 weeks, and for 5 weeks’ vacation 

after 15 years. The association also demanded (1) city 

payment of all, rather than half, of health insurance

16

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
costs; (2) longevity pay with a maximum of $54 a 

month; and (3) terminal leave pay equal to half the 

employee’s accumulated sick leave accumulation.

The Professional Policemen’s Protective Association 

requested the Common Council to increase the minimum salary of patrolmen from $464 a month to $600 in

1964. Increases also were requested for higher level 

police officers to maintain current pay differentials. A 

shift differential for late shift work was requested as well 

as a larger extra payment for motorcycle officers. The association also renewed its demand for a $125 yearly 

clothing allowance for detectives. Later in May, the 

Police Chief requested a one-step pay increase for almost 

all Police Department personnel in addition to any 

general pay raise given general employees.

Other requests were submitted by Local 195, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; by Local 

17, Building Service Employees’ Union; and by several 

uncertified employee groups.

Earlier negotiations scheduled for 1963

The Finance Committee, on May 29, voted to begin 

negotiations with certified employee unions in July and 

also start hearings for other employee groups and the 

general public at the same time. In past years wage 

hearings were not started until September. Early in July, 

the City Personnel Director announced that on July 22 

the Finance Committee would hear petitions from civic 

groups, department heads, and employee groups not 

certified as officials bargaining agents. July 23 was 

reserved to hear petitions from employee groups for 

whom WERB certification was pending. Representatives 

of certified unions were scheduled to appear on July 26.

Procedural problems arise at outset o f negotiations

On July 26, the Finance Committee, acting as the 

Labor Policy Committee, met for the first time with the 

six employee unions that had been certified as official 

bargaining agents under Section 111.70. The all-day 

session ended in nearly a complete deadlock on procedures. The committee’s proposal that all union representatives negotiate as a panel on wage matters and fringe 

benefits was rejected immediately. District Council 48 

and the other four AFL-CIO affiliated unions agreed to 

meet as a panel if the Garbage Collection Laborers 

Independent Union were excluded, and the latter organization took the same position.2

Later, the committee proposed an alternative plan 

which both union groups tentatively agreed to accept. 

The proposal called for separate negotiations up to a 

point where in the committee’s judgement, “matters

pertaining to uniformity and equal treatment of 

employees” were involved. The committee claimed it 

was bound to include this provision because the State 

budget law required uniform pay rates for similar 

positions in city government. The two union groups and 

the committee agreed to meet separately on August 16 

to arrive at a bargaining procedure.

The matter of separate bargaining was settled when 

the Common Council, on August 1, approved a resolution outlining procedures for the Finance Committee to 

follow that provided for the following alternatives: (1) 

joint negotiations and conferences for the certified 

unions; or, (2) separate negotiations and conferences, 

but in the interest of uniformity and equal treatment of 

employees, the committee would have the right to 

require joint conferences and negotiations of all certified 

unions; or (3) the committee might confer and negotiate 

with one or more certified unions at time but would 

only submit responses on a uniform basis respecting 

wages, hours, and conditions of employment.

Bargaining talks resumed on August 16, when the five 

AFL-CIO unions met with the Finance Committee. The 

unions submitted several proposals on bargaining 

procedures that called for annual labor negotiations 

starting by June 1, every possible attempt for reaching a 

“good faith” agreement by July 15, the right to “separate and uninterrupted negotiations” for all certified 

unions, agreements to be put in writing and signed by 

both parties, and excuses with full pay to attend negotiations during working hours for union representatives 

working for the city.

Pay demand for city employees on union negotiating

teams slows talks

Virtually all of the requests were rejected by the city 

negotiators. The committee’s chairman said that many 

of the union’s proposals could not be made binding 

beyond the election of a new Common Council the 

following spring. He added that labor matters were 

negotiated on an annual basis. He also argued that the 

committee had decided not to pay employees while they 

atten d ed bargaining sessions. Union spokesmen 

contended that union representatives should not lose 

pay and that the city’s refusal to pay was unfair and 

discriminatory since city officials were paid for negotiations. If union representatives were not to be paid, 

meetings should be held after working hours so the 

union negotiators would not suffer any loss in pay. Until 

1962, the city paid workers for time lost in wage 

hearings. The current sessions were expected to take 

much longer, because the unions were officially certified 

as bargaining agents, and many city employees might be

17

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
involved, since each union could determine the size of its 

bargaining committee according to its own needs.

In reply to the unions’ requests for a written and 

signed agreement,,the committee’s chairman said that 

the city would implement its agreements by the passage 

of ordinances as provided under the State law. However, 

the committee also would give consideration to an 

alternative union proposal that the committee pass 

resolutions spelling out the agreements reached. When 

the 3-hour session adjourned about 12:40 p.m., the 

next meeting was set tentatively for September 6 or 7, 

but no time was mentioned. The executive director of 

District Council 48 said his union group was not prepared to meet on basic bargaining issues until the 

question of pay for negotiating time was settled.

The issue of pay for negotiating time also resulted in 

the late appearance of representatives of the Garbage 

Collection Laborers Union who appeared at the City 

Hall for a meeting at 3:30 p.m. No committee members 

were present. The union’s attorney had requested a 3:30 

session, but was informed that the committee would 

hear the union’s requests at 11 a.m. They showed up at 

the later time anyway, contending that they were off 

work then and could meet without losing pay. The 

attorney for the union said he would send a telegram to 

the committee chairman offering to meet on weekdays 

after 3:30 p.m. or on Saturdays, at the committee’s 

choice.

Garbage Union asks W ERB to settle meeting time

dispute

L a te r , th e Garbage Collection Laborers Union 

accused the city of refusal to bargain and notified the 

WERB that it intended to file charges. In a letter to the 

WERB chairman, the union noted that 4 days had 

elapsed since it had sent a telegram to the Finance 

Committee asking that negotiations take place on 

weekends or after 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. On August 

23, the union filed a formal complaint with the WERB, 

charging that the city refused to meet on August 16, to 

respond to a request to meet, and to meet separately. 

The complaint said the city had changed a long established practice of permitting employee representatives to 

attend wage hearings during normal working hours with 

full pay. The union asked the Board to order the city to 

meet separately and either pay employees or to conduct 

meetings during off-hours.

On August 29, the city filed a motion with the WERB 

asking for a dismissal of the union’s complaint. The city 

alleged that the Garbage Collection Laborers Union was 

not entitled legally to file a complaint or even participate in wage negotiations. The motion noted that

District Council 48 had filed a petition asking the circu 

court to review the WERB’s certification of the Indepe; 

dent Union.

The circuit court on September 5 dismissed tt 

petition filed by District Council 48 and upheld th 

election of the Milwaukee Garbage Collection Laborei 

Independent Local Union to represent garbage collectio 

laborers. On September 17, the WERB threw out th 

city’s motion seeking dismissal of the complaint mad 

by the Independent Union, stating that an appeal of th 

circuit court’s ruling to the State Supreme Court b; 

District Council 48 did not constitute an automatic sta] 

of the Board’s certification of the Garbage Collectioi 

Laborers Union. The city and Independent Union wen 

given 1 week to work out their differences on a time fo 

negotiations-with or without pay for union represen 

tatives. If an agreement could not be reached, a hearing 

on the union’s complaint would be rescheduled. Such 2 

hearing scheduled for September 25 had been postponed 

by the WERB chairman.3

City and unions resolve paid negotiating time

roadblocks

The next negotiating session with the five AFL-CIO 

unions took place on September 5 at 7:30 p.m. Representatives of the Garbage Collection Laborers Union 

were not invited. The chairman of the Finance Committee said that the Independent Union would have to 

make the first move in asking for another meeting. In a 5 

hour session, a tentative agreement was reached that the 

city would pay for one representative from each of the 

AFL-CIO certified locals or unions4 for time off the job 

while attending 1964 wage negotiations. The unions 

earlier had asked that two employees from each local or 

union be paid. Still unsettled was a union request for an 

exception to this plan in certain cases involving reallocations of entire job classifications. The unions conceded 

that the most workable method would be for the 

committee to take the initiative in setting the time and 

place of meetings, but added that the committee would 

have to accept the fact that it would be impossible for 

the unions to meet at certain times. The agreement was 

approved by the Finance Committee in a subsequent 

negotiating meeting on September 18, when it also 

decided to hold a meeting the following week with the 

Garbage Collection Laborers Union to discuss the issue 

of pay for union negotiators.5

The matter finally was settled on September 27, 

when the Common Council adopted a resolution specifying that one representative from each bargaining unit 

be paid his regular base salary for time spent in conference and negotiations during working hours. The

18

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Finance Committee would set times for conferences and 

negotiations, but provision was made for changing this 

time schedule when it was inconvenient to the union 

representatives.

Negotiations commence on substantive issues

The first negotiating session devoted to substantive 

issues took place on October 1, when representatives of 

District Council 48 and of Local 125-B, International 

Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, renewed their 1964 

requests for a 7 percent general wage increase and 

improved fringe benefits.6

Between October 1 and November 7, the Finance 

Committee met from time to time with one or the other 

of the certified and uncertified unions. On October 29, 

the committee made its first major offer—a 3 percent 

general wage increase—which, after considerable negotiations, was rejected by the certified unions.

In separate bargaining sessions on November 4, the 

Professional Policemen’s Protective Association and the 

Milwaukee Fire Fighters’ Association also rejected the 

city’s offer. The policemen held to their demand for job 

reallocations that would raise the starting salary for 

patrolmen from $464 to $600 a month. The firemen 

offered a counterproposal, unsatisfactory to the committee, to reduce their pay increase demand from $50 a 

month to $35. On November 5, the Finance Committee 

turned down a request by District Council 48 and Local 

125-B that a WERB mediator be called in to help resolve 

the stalemate in negotiations. The committee flatly 

rejected the latest demand of the two unions for a 6 

percent across-the-board wage increase; it held firm to its 

original offer of a 3 percent raise. The issue of job reallocations also remained unresolved.

Representatives of Local 195, IBEW, and of Local 17, 

BSEIU, in a bargaining session on November 6, asked the 

Finance Committee to up its 1964 pay raise offer from 3 

percent to 4 percent. The bridge tenders, represented by 

Local 195, originally had asked for a 20-cent-an-hour 

increase. Natatorium workers, represented by Local 17, 

had asked for a AlA percent increase.

On November 8, a public hearing on the budget was 

held in accordance with Section 65.04 (7) of the 

Wisconsin Statutes that requires a public hearing on the 

budget not later than November 10. The proposed 

budget was incomplete, because a final determination of 

proposed wage increases for 1964 had not been made. 

However, the proposed budget did include a possible 

amendment that provided $1,710,000 to cover a 3 

percent general wage increase which had been included 

in the city’s offer of October 29.

Finance Committee presents city's final offer

Following a week of additional negotiating sessions 

the Finance Committee on Friday, November 15, made 

a final counterproposal to be accepted or rejected on 

Monday, November 18, and said that if the unions 

rejected it, the committee would recommend that the 

Common Council adopt the initial proposal of October 

29. During the course of these negotiations District 

Council 48 reduced its previous demand for a 6 percent 

pay raise to 5xk precent. The union also agreed to a city 

proposal that employees get 4-week vacations after 20 

years instead of after 25 and dropped its demand for a 

fifth week after 25 years. The union rejected the committee’s proposal to switch certain holidays for other 

off-days. It had not requested any change in holiday 

provisions. No agreement was reached on the union’s 

demand for reallocations of jobs. The city’s final 

counterproposal on November 15 included the following 

major provisions:

(1) A general wage increase of 3 percent for 1964;

(2) A fourth week of vacation after 20 rather than after 25

years of service for general employees;

(3) An additional payment of $2.70 toward the employee’s

share o f the family hospital care insurance payment;

(4) A change in the holiday schedule for general employees

(a) to eliminate Lincoln’s Birthday and Veteran’s Day

and substitute in lieu thereof the last working days

before Christmas and New Year’s Day; (b) to provide

three additional “off-days” in lieu of election days

heretofore treated as holidays for employees on the

payroll as of January 1,1964; and (c) to recognize the

Friday before Memorial Day and July 4 as paid

holidays when these days fell on Saturday;

(5) A 10 cent-an-hour weekend shift differential to employees regularly employed on any of the three daily shifts on

weekends. Firefighters were excluded;

(6) Free influenza shots;

(7) A provision for $60,000 in the 1964 budget, to begin

implementation of the Gage-Babcock Report providing a

plan for institution of a 56 hour week for firefighters;

(8) A variety of other benefits, including clothing allowances

and city absorption of any additional cost of group life

insurance.

Unions reject final city offer

This final counterproposal by the city was rejected by 

all the major unions on November 18. Mediation was 

proposed by District Council 48 and Local 125-B, but 

the city rejected the proposal because of the November 

20 statutory deadline for adoption of the city budget. 

The committee also rejected consideration of a last 

minute union counteroffer, because it would have prolonged negotiations. District Council 48 offered to 

accept a 3 percent general increase, if the full family 

premium of Blue Cross-Blue Shield was paid and if

19

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
money earmarked for an unwanted change in holidays 

was used to grant certain reallocation of positions. The 

other certified AFL-CIO unions joined District Council 

48 in the counteroffer.

Major unions apply to W ERB for factfinding

Following the city’s rejection of the final counteroffer by the unions the executive director of District 

Council 48 said he would submit a request for factfinding to the WERB for his certified locals and for 

Local 125-B of the International Brotherhood of 

Firemen and Oilers. The Professional Policemen’s Protective Association also indicated it would ask for factfinding as did the Milwaukee Fire Fighters’ Association.

Truckdrivers stop work

On November 19, about 240 city truckdrivers represented by Local 33 of District Council 48 began a 1 

week work stoppage that idled about 1,200 other city 

employees and halted garbage and rubbage collection.7 

On November 20, the Common Council adopted by 

resolution and incorporated in its budget for 1964 the 

terms of the Finance Committee’s final counterproposal 

submitted to the unions on November 18.

City joins major unions in requesting factfinding

City truckdrivers belonging to Local 33 returned to 

work on November 27. On November 26, the Common 

Council unanimously approved a resolution in which it 

joined the unions in petitioning the WERB for factfinding. The approved resolution did not call for binding 

factfinding but recognized “a strong moral obligation

-----upon all parties to give consideration to any

recommendation of a responsible' factfinder designated 

under law by the WERB” .

The WERB on December 12 found that all conditions 

precedent to factfinding existed and ordered that factfinding be initiated pursuant to Section 111.70(4). The 

three-man panel appointed by the WERB held its first 

public hearing on December 16. By order of the WERB 

the petitions of the following labor organizations were 

consolidated for the purpose of hearings before the factfinding panel appointed by the Board:

(1) City of Milwaukee Garbage Collection Laborers Independent Local Union;

(2) Milwaukee District Council 48 (and its appropriate affiliated locals), American Federation of State County and

Municipal Employees (AFL-CIO);

(3) Milwaukee Fire Fighters Association, Local 215, International Association of Fire Fighters (AFL-CIO);

(4) The Professional Policemen’s Protective Association of

Milwaukee.

Local 125-B, International Brotherhood of Firemen and 

Oilers withdrew its petition for factfinding before 

December 12.

— F O O TN O TE S—

lrThe association earlier in 1963 had petitioned WERB to

conduct an election. The resolution followed the findings of the

Board concerning the eligible employees in the bargaining unit.

2 Local 1203 of District Council 48 had represented garbage

collection laborers prior to 1963. Early in 1963, the local president, in a feud with the Executive Director of Council 48, led a

bolt and formed the Milwaukee Garbage Collection Laborers

Independent Local Union. Later the independent union won the

1963 certification election 175 to 102.

3 The State Supreme Court on March 31, 1964 upheld the

WERB’s administrative authority to certify the Independent

Union as bargaining representative for garbage workers.

4 Representatives from each of the recognized locals of

District Council 48, in addition to a representative from Local

125-B, International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers; Local

195, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Local 17,

Building Service Employees Union; and Local 494, International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

5 At this same meeting, Local 195 of the International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Local 17 of the Building

Service Employees Union notified the committee that they were

withdrawing from the panel of AFL-CIO negotiators. The attorney for the two unions said they were withdrawing because of

delays resulting from a disagreement between the committee and

District Council 48. He added they would ask to negotiate

separately and would notify the committee when they would

be available to meet.

6 Information for use by the Labor Policy Committee in

negotiations was contained in a report prepared by the Personnel

Department, This report contained recommendations for

changes in wages and fringe benefits based on (1) a survey of

wages and fringe benefits practices in 27 cities having a

population of 400,000 or more, and (2) an analysis of surveys

conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics o f private

employers in the Milwaukee area. In addition to the Bureau’s

regular annual area occupational wage survey, the city

contracted with BLS to conduct a special survey of private

employers having 500 or more employees. The special BLS

survey implemented a recommendation of the Policy Committee

of the five taxing units in the hope that the information from

such a survey would provide the units with a more useful and

common basis upon which to conduct wage negotiations with

their employee organizations. The latter survey replaced the

survey of local industry previously conducted by the city in

alternate years.

7 Local 33 truck drivers reported to work every morning,

then left to attend union meetings.

20

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1964 Developments

Factfinding by the panel appointed by the WERB 

with regard to the deadlock in negotiations of wages and 

fringe benefits adopted by the city for 1964 continued 

throughout most of the year. Public hearings were held 

on February 11 and 18, after the initial hearings on 

December 16, 1963. Further hearings were held on 

March 10 and 11.

The task of the panel was to determine why the 

unions and the city had reached an impasse and how it 

could be resolved. The demand of the unions raised a 

number of both economic and noneconomic issues. The 

economic issues included demands (a) for a general wage 

increase and for new or improved fringe benefits greater 

than those placed in effect by the city on January 1, 

1964 and (b) for correction of alleged gross inequities 

affecting particular jobs. The major noneconomic issues 

were demands for a written contract, an agency shop, 

and m od ificatio n of the existing grievance and 

arbitration procedures.

W ERB conducts representation elections in non-DPW

departments

On April 22, the WERB conducted representation 

elections for approximately 1,100 employees in 11 

non-DPW departments. Four unions, including District 

Council 48 and three smaller unions, won representation 

for about 900 employees. The smaller unions were the 

Association of Physicians and Dentists, the Association 

of Scientific Personnel, and the Staff Nurses Council of 

the Milwaukee Health Department. (See appendix B.) 

District Council 48 won representation for about 700 

more employees, most of them in the Public Library, the 

Public Museum, the Department of Building Inspection 

and Safety Engineering, and in the Tax Department.

Unions submit demands for 1965

Fifteen unions and other organizations representing 

city employees submitted 1965 wage and fringe benefit 

requests by the May 15 deadline. These requests 

included demands for general pay increases ranging from 

4 to 7 percent, 2 and 3-year contracts, the reallocation 

of jobs to higher pay ranges, new and more liberal fringe 

benefits, and impartial arbitration of grievances.

District Council 48, which now officially represented 

about 3,600 workers, asked for a 2-year contract with

increases of 15 cents an hour each year. Other major 

bargaining goals listed by District Council 48 included 

time and one-half pay for regularly scheduled Saturday 

and Sunday work; full payment by the city of 

hospital-surgical care; terminal leave pay amounting to 

one-half the accumulated sick leave at retirement, to a 

maximum of 45 days pay; a second-shift differential of 5 

percent and a third-shift differential of 7 percent; a 

vacation program calling for 2 weeks after 1 year oi 

service, 3 weeks after 5 years, 4 weeks after 12 years, 

and 5 weeks after 20 years; double time for all 

unscheduled (overtime) work on weekends and holidays; 

and restoration of the holiday schedule in effect as of 

1962 with all holidays guaranteed. The union also asked 

for a reduction of service between increments from 1 

year to 6 months, making it possible for an employee to 

reach the top of his pay range in 2 years instead of 4 

years; for the accumulation of vacation time, but not 

more than 1 week a year for a maximum of 10 weeks; 

and sick leave pay for employees covering absences when 

family members were ill.

The Professional Policemen’s Protective Association 

requested an increase from $478 to $625 a month in the 

minimum salary for patrolmen. A 40-hour week and a 

special pay schedule were requested by Local 215, 

Milwaukee Fire Fighters’ Association. Among other 

certified unions Local 17, BSEIU requested a 3-year contract with a 5-percent wage increase each year; Local 

195, IBEW, asked for a reallocation of bridgetenders to 

raise minimum salaries from $5,080 a year to $5,500 

plus a 7-percent general increase for all employees; the 

Staff Nurses’ Council asked for the reallocation of nurses 

and public health nurses to hijgher pay categories; 

and Local 125-B, IBFO, requested a 15-cents-per-hour 

increase. The Garbage Collection Laborers Union requested reallocation of garbage collectors to raise their 

pay from $4,716 a year to $5,568, plus a 

25-cent-an-hour across-the-board increase. Other 

requests were submitted by the Association of Graduate 

and Registered Engineers, Milwaukee Government 

Service League, City and County Public Service 

Em ployees U nion, and Association of Scientific 

Personnel.

Prolonged factfinding delays negotiations for 1965

An early starting date for negotiations, as in July 

1963, became impossible when the factfinding panel

21

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
failed to make its recommendations for 1964 and 

scheduled further public hearings for July 15 and 16. 

Milwaukee Fire Fighters’ Local 215 was the only one of 

the four unions engaged in factfinding which asked the 

city to begin negotiations, regardless of whether the 

panel had returned its recommendations for 1964. 

Representatives of the other three unions engaged in 

factfinding wanted to start 1965 talks as soon as 

possible, but not until recommendations for 1964 had 

been received and a settlement had been reached.

City appoints City Personnel Director as chief negotiator

In September, the Common Council, in preparation 

for negotiations with certified unions, designated the 

City Personnel Director to serve as the city’s first chief 

negotiator. In past years, negotiations and wage hearings 

had been held before the entire Finance Committee. 

Negotiations were open to the public but both sides met 

secretly to establish positions. The Common Council, in 

a policy statement, said that the Finance Committee 

would set guidelines for the chief negotiator and would 

confer frequently with him on the progress of 

negotiations. The committee would reserve the right to 

negotiate directly. Final decisions on all wage and labor 

matters would continue to be made by the Common 

Council.

On November 10, the Common Council held a public 

hearing on the 1965 budget; however, the preliminary 

budget did not include the projected cost of wages and 

other benefits for employees. It was announced that a 

public hearing on wages and benefits would be held 

before November 16, when the budget was scheduled to 

be adopted. The Council had moved the budget 

adoption deadline up 4 days from the statutory 

requirement of November 20. Very little hard bargaining 

had taken place before November 10. The unions 

accused the city of stalling and waiting to see what the 

factfinders would recommend for 1964. The Finance 

Committee chairman said that the city’s last offer 

included a general wage proposal of about 3 percent. He 

added that the city was negotiating on the basis of that 

offer until the factfinders returned their recommendations for 1964 and settlements were reached for 1964. 

The city, he said, had conducted negotiations on 1965 

demands on the assumption that what had been offered 

employees for 1964 was right. The director of District 

Council 48 demanded that the city present his union 

with a proposal by 3 p.m. on Friday, November

13. If the city didn’t make an offer that could be 

presented for ratification, his members, he said, would 

take appropriate action at a mass meeting called for 4

p.m . on Friday. Further unsuccessful negotiating 

sessions took place on November 11 and 12.

Factfinders about ready to release recommendations

In a statement on November 11, the factfinding panel 

announced it had reached unanimous agreement on 

tentative recommendations for settling the 1964 dispute 

and that its report would be released early the following 

week. On November 12, it was reported that the 12 

member bargaining team for District Council 48 and 

some members of the Finance Committee would meet 

on Friday morning, November 13, in Madison with the 

chairman of the 3-member factfinding panel. Since it 

was believed that the panel’s forthcoming report might 

possibly involve some suggestions for 1965, it was felt 

that an agreement could be reached easily on 1965 

demands if the panel’s recommendations were known.

City reaches agreement with District Council 48 for

1965

Following a 7-hour mediation session on Friday, 

November 13, the chairman of the factfinding panel 

announced that representatives of the city and District 

Council 48 had reached an agreement providing for a 

3-percent-wage increase with a minimum raise of 

$12.50-a-month for 1965. The agreement also called for 

the city to pay the full cost of Blue Cross-Blue Shield 

insurance for single coverage and $3 of the $6 monthly 

premium paid by the employee for family coverage. The 

city also agreed to pay the full cost of family coverage 

beginning July 1965. In addition, the city agreed to 

establish a fund of $150,000 to correct wage inequities 

for District Council 48 and an additional $180,000 for 

the other certified unions.

City offers District Council 48 terms for 1965 to other

unions

The Finance Committee submitted the terms of this 

agreement later that same night to the representatives of 

eight other certified unions in a meeting at City Hall. 

Fire Fighters’ Local 215 also was offered a 56-hourwork-week effective July 1, 1965, in addition to a 

3-percent pay increase.

On November 16, the Common Council adopted a 

1965 budget which included a 3-percent salary increase 

and higher hospital-surgical insurance payments. The 

budget also included $330,000 to cover actions that 

might be recommended by the factfinding panel. The 

Professional Policemen’s Protective Association and Fire 

Fighters’ Local 215 immediately rejected the 3-percent

22

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
wage increase as inadequate. Representatives from both 

organizations said they did not feel obligated to approve 

the city’s settlement with District Council 48.

Factfinding panel's final report issued on December 14

The long-awaited factfinding panel’s final report was 

issued on December 14. For the year 1964, the factfinders stated: “In the opinion of the panel, the city’s 

3-percent-wage increase, at least in hindsight, was substantial and fair to the employees.” The panel also 

recommended, that the city assume a greater share of 

the cost of Blue Cross-Blue Shield insurance. It suggested 

that, for the month of December 1964, the city absorb 

one-half of the employee’s present contribution for 

family coverage, which stood at $6-a-month, and all of 

the cost for single person coverage, to which the 

employee was contributing $l-a-month. The panel noted 

that the city and District Council 48, in bargaining for 

1965, had already agreed to a two-step elimination of 

the employee’s contribution, the city to absorb one-half 

of the employee’s contribution for family coverage and 

all of the single person’s contribution beginning January 

1, 1965, and the balance beginning July 1, 1965. The 

panel suggested that some of the many other union 

demands for 1964 seemed to have merit and ought to be 

referred to “Study Committees” if further facts were 

needed; recommended that some be remanded to the 

parties where the p.anel felt that they had not exhausted 

their “duty to bargain” as contemplated by Section 

111.70; and some were to be referred, because of their 

special significance, directly to the recommended “City 

of Milwaukee Labor Peace Agency.” Other demands 

were considered as dropped.

Factfinders recommend new procedures for

future negotiations

For 1965, the panel recommended that the parties 

negotiate a settlement of the economic issues as soon as 

possible, so as to be free to inaugurate recommended 

procedures to be followed in future negotiations.

Included among these recommendations were basic 

reforms which hopefully would prevent future impasses. 

The panel, in recommending the establishment of a 

Labor Peace Agency, concluded that a specialized 

agency should be created to assist the parties when an 

impasse was reached in their bargaining. They noted that 

there the parties could really do nothing in the event of 

a deadlock or stalemate, since in public employment 

there was no legal right to strike. They also noted that 

the legislature had not provided for compulsory arbitration. The personnel of the Peace Agency would come

from a roster of university professors and public-spirited 

citizens acceptable to both parties. The suggested duties 

of the Peace Agency included the following: (1) to assist 

the parties in coverting the terms of an informal agreem ent in to contract language; (2) to furnish an 

“observer” to attend any or all negotiations; (3) to assist 

the parties in the event of an impasse by identifying and 

clarifying all of the issues in dispute and the positions of 

the respective parties; (4) to serve an an intermediary 

between the parties and the mediator, or the “factfinder”, if either should be appointed, pointing out the 

hard-core issues and making suggestions to expedite the 

mediation or factfinding procedures; (5) to assist the 

“factfinder” in securing acceptance of his recommendations; and (6) to furnish the “neutral” (or “public”) 

members for the recommended tri-partite “Study 

Committees”.

The panel recommended Study Committees for the 

purpose of studying those issues which the panel 

referred to them. They noted that those issues were so 

numerous that the panel couldn’t give them sufficient 

consideration to make an informed and reasoned 

recommendation on their merits.

Full-time labor negotiator also recommended

The panel also recommended changes in procedures 

for conducting negotiations. They suggested that the 

city appoint a full-time, experienced labor negotiator 

with well-defined authority to continue in charge of 

negotiations until the time came for the Labor Policy 

Committee to participate. In the past, all bargaining was 

carried on by the Finance (Labor Policy) Committee. 

This system was inadequate and extremely cumbersome. 

(The Common Council in September had designated the 

City Personnel Director to serve as the city’s chief 

negotiator in bargaining on 1965 wages and fringe 

benefits.)

New timetable suggested for future negotiations

The panel recommended that a timetable for 

collective bargaining be established in order to insure 

that negotiations and factfinding, if necessary, be 

completed by October 15, well ahead of November 20, 

the statutory deadline for approval of the city’s budget. 

The steps of the timetable were (1) submission of union 

demands to city by February 1; (2) submission of city’s 

answer (within 6 weeks) by March 15 ; (3) negotiations 

to begin (within 4 weeks) by April 15; (4) conclusion of 

negotiations (within 3 months) by July 15; (5) 

mediation, if any, on July 15 ; (6) factfinding, if any, by 

August 1; (7) recommendations issued by October 15.

23

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Factfinders favored written contracts

The panel also recommended that with the exception 

of those matters which were required by law to be dealt 

with by ordinance or resolution, that all terms or conditions of employment finally agreed upon by the parties 

be incorporated into a written signed contract. The 

panel noted that Section 111.70 (4)(i) did not deal with 

the length (duration) of a written contract. The panel 

doubted whether the legislature, which concerned 

primarily with stabilizing public employee labor relations, intended that bargaining take place each year. To 

avoid any possible legal question, the panel recommended that the parties enter into a 2-year contract that 

contained a provision that on 30 days’ notice before the 

end of the first year, either party could reopen all or any 

part of the contract, and that, in the absence of such 

notice, the contract would be renewed automatically for 

another year.

Panel suggests guidelines for public's "right to know"

The panel in commenting on the principle of the 

public’s “right to know” , that underlies the State’s 

“Anti-Secrecy Statute” , felt that the statute did not 

prevent realistic public collective bargaining as 

contemplated by the legislature in adopting Section

111.70. The panel believed that both principles could be 

accommodated and suggested that negotiations be in 

private until the time when they came before the 

Finance Committee, at which time all proceedings would 

be public.

Another significant recom m endation concerned the 

prevailing grievance procedure which made the City 

Service Commission the arbitrator for those employee 

groups under its jurisdiction. The unions charged that 

the city was acting as both advocate and judge since the 

Commission was a branch of the city government. They 

contended that such a procedure was unfair, though the 

Commission might act in the best of faith. The panel 

agreed and recommended that a new grievance and 

arbitration procedure be negotiated, and that the present 

procedure be continued in the interim.

Factfinders recommend separate police pay plan

The factfinding panel’s report recommended that 

police classes be taken out of the city’s single, over-all 

pay classification structure, so that policemen would be 

free to concentrate on their own special problems in 

future collective bargaining. The factfinders suggested 

that the city and the Policemen’s Association “bargain 

out a new and realistic system of compensation and

working conditions reflecting the character and importance of the policemen’s duties in 1965, A.D. and not

B.C.” The panel also proposed a conference to consider 

setting up a special educational program for policemen, 

outside the department. The attorney for the Policemen’s Association called the findings of the panel “a 

magna carta for a new professional status for Milwaukee 

policemen.”

Factfinders support most demands fo Fire Fighters'

Association

The panel supported the Fire Fighters’ Association 

request for a reduction of the workweek from 63 to 56 

hours but said the reduction should come July 1, not 

January 1, as requested by the association. The city 

already had agreed to the reduction on July 1, with the 

knowledge that it would be recommended by the factfinders’ report. The panel recommended that a study 

committee take up the question of whether fire fighters 

were entitled to more time off in lieu of holidays. The 

panel noted that the number of work hours off for 

holidays was less than the number of holidays “granted 

to general employees in Milwaukee and less than the 

number granted to firemen in most other comparable 

cities.” The panel supported the association’s demand 

for the 10-cent weekend shift differential paid to all 

other employees for regularly scheduled, non-overtime 

weekend work. In lieu of making such a payment retroactive, the panel recommended that the parties negotiate 

a lump sum payment. The panel rejected the association’s request that fire fighters be lifted out of the 

city’s overall pay classification structure. They said that 

this request had been made since the close of formal 

hearings in the factfinding proceedings before the panel. 

The factfinders said that they could not approve 

bracketing fire fighters with policemen, but that further 

negotiations, or study by the Peace Agency, might well 

suggest a separate pay range for fire fighters. This separation, the panel said, would permit the Fire Fighters’ 

Association more freedom to bargain on their own 

special problems.

Panel recommends that demands of garbage collectors be

studied further

The panel recommended that the request of the 

Garbage Collection Laborers for reallocation to a higher 

pay range be referred to a study committee. It also 

recommended that the city grant the union’s request 

that* the seniority practice in the assignment of garbage 

collectors to emergency snow removal be incorporated 

into a written contract.

24-

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Panel recommends further consideration of District

Council 48's demands

The panel took no position on the merits of the 

demand of District Council 48 for an agency shop agreement. They recommended that the “agency shop” issue 

be referred to the Peace Agency for study. The issue of 

compensation for pumping and filtration plant employees for holidays at time and one-half eliminated in 

1963 was remanded to the city and District Council 48 

for further bargaining. The contention by District 

Council 48 that truckdrivers and automotive mechanics 

were underpaid in comparison to their counterparts in 

private industry was referred to a study committee for 

its consideration. All other union demands were 

considered by the panel as dismissed for the year 1964.

Interpretation of factfinders' report in dispute

Following release of the panel’s report spokesmen for 

the Fire Fighters’ Association, the Policemen’s Association, and the Independent Garbage Collection 

Laborers said that they construed the panel’s recommendation as giving them an opportunity to bargain for 

more than the 3-percent increase verbally accepted by 

District Council 48 on November 13. The City Personnel 

Director (chief negotiator), however, announced that 

negotiations for 1965 definitely were through. A few 

days later, the director of District Council 48, in a letter 

to the Common Council, asked for a written contract by 

January 1. The settlement reached in the mediation 

session in Madison on November 13 was subsequently 

ratified on November 30 by the bargaining committee 

for District Council 48.

City acts to implement factfinders' recommendations

On December 15 the Common Council adopted a 

resolution calling for the Finance Committee to determine the impact of the factfinding panel’s report on 

city-union negotiations and to report on how the 

recommendations might be implemented. On December 

30, the Common Council adopted a Finance Committee 

recommended resolution providing for written labor 

co n tracts. The resolution provided for a special 

committee of five to prepare tentative drafts of the 

contracts after conferring and negotiating on the terms 

of the contracts. The committee would consist of the 

Deputy City Attorney, as chairman; the City Personnel 

Director; the City Budget Director; the Information 

Secretary to the Council; and the Clerk of the Finance 

Committee. All other recommendations of the factfinding panel, except the implementation of the 56-hour 

week for fire fighters, were referred to the city’s chief 

negotiator (City Personnel Director) with instructions to 

negotiate the implementation of the panel’s findings 

with the respective unions.

In another action the Common Council decided to 

cut the workweek of fire fighters from 63 to 56 hours 

effective May 1, 1965. This action, as recommended by 

the Finance Committee, approved a plan proposed by 

the Fire Chief for reducing the number of engine and 

ladder companies and the elimination and reallocation of 

several fire stations, while holding new personnel needs 

to a minimum. Approval of the plan by the Council 

climaxed a 6-year fight by the Fire Fighters’ Association 

for a shorter workweek.

The city, in its negotiations, utilized information 

contained in the Classification Division’s survey of wages 

and benefit practices in 27 cities with over 400,000 

population and the BLS Milwaukee area wage surveys, 

consisting of its regular survey and a special survey of 

large firms conducted as a contract service for the city.

25

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1965 Developments

The signed report of the factfinding panel was 

submitted officially on December 14,1964.

City moves to implement factfinders' recommendations

Implementation of the panel’s recommendations as 

they pertained to two of the involved unions followed 

within less than 6 months. The city’s first written labor 

contract, with District Council 48 and its appropriate 

affiliated locals, was signed on May 7. It had been 

ratified by the Common Council on April 20. This agreement was for the remainder of 1965.

Bargaining talks between the city and representatives 

of District Council 48 had been largely futile until 

March, when the WERB was requested by the parties to 

assist in resolving their differences. At the start of a 

mediation meeting on March 15, the parties were told by 

the WERB chairman to “concentrate on sincere collective bargaining rather than collective haggling.” In 

criticizing both sides the chairman urged representatives 

of the city and District Council 48 to concentrate their 

efforts on reaching an agreement and to “refrain from 

harassment by action and inaction.” He said the union’s 

harassment was “by action in threatening a strike; and 

the city’s harassment was “by inaction in failing to take 

a position on the issues and as to whether it will effectuate the recommendations of the factfinding panel.”

W ERB helps city and District Council 48 solve sticky

issues

The biggest issues in dispute revolved around arbitration clauses and a no-strike pledge to be inserted in the 

first written contract for city employees. Subcontracting 

of work was a third major issue. The arbitration impasse 

was resolved tentatively, when city negotiators on the 

15th verbally agreed to accept a WERB compromise 

proposal for advisory arbitration of employee grievances 

involving suspension and discharge cases that fell under 

the statutory jurisdiction of the City Service Commission. The WERB recommendation had been made 

more than a week before, but was not acted on immediately by the City Service Commission after a 

meeting with WERB mediators. The union, which 

previously had insisted that a no-strike pledge must be 

conditioned on binding arbitration of grievances, 

accepted the compromise plan. City negotiators

rep o rted ly had balked; they contended that the 

compromise would help the union undermine the City 

Service Commission, which handled major disciplinary 

cases. City negotiators also tentatively agreed on final 

and binding arbitration on contract interpretation 

disputes on nondisciplinary matters not handled by the 

City Service Commission. The WERB commissioners 

scheduled a meeting on March 17. This meeting and 

several subsequent bargaining sessions mediated by 

WERB commissioners failed to produce a written agreement. The parties could not agree on the details of 

contract language covering arbitration clauses and the 

no-strike, no-lockout clauses.

City and District Council 48 agree on 1965 contract

provisions

Final agreement on contract terms did not come until 

March 28—after a 40-hour nonstop bargaining session 

that had started on March 26. WERB members served as 

mediators during the marathon session. The agreement 

included clauses on grievance and arbitration procedures, 

prohibition of strikes and lockouts, and union and 

management rights, which were particularly significant, 

either because they were departures from previous city 

practices or because they clearly defined employment 

policies which were set forth in an agreement between 

city employees and management for the first time. Only 

those matters not covered by the City Service Commission statute would be subject to binding arbitration. 

These would include disputes over seniority rights, work 

rules, and application of the contract’s terms on wages, 

hours, and working conditions. Disciplinary disputes 

would be subject to advisory arbitration, which the City 

Service Commission could overrule. The commission still 

would have sole authority to arbitrate grievances on 

promotions and job examinations.

The union agreed that it would not cause directly or 

indirectly any work stoppage, slowdown, or refusal by 

city workers to do customarily assigned duties. The city 

agreed not to lock out or bar any workers from their 

jobs in a labor dispute. Employees taking part in an 

unauthorized strike would be subject to discharge or loss 

of pay and holiday and vacation benefits. In the event of 

a strike, the union would have to pay the city $20 a day 

for each striker and $500 a day as damages if the strike 

prevented other employees from working. In case of a 

lockout, the city would have to pay the regular wages of

26

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
employees prevented from working plus $500 damages 

to the union if more than 50 workers were affected.

The union recognized the city’s right to hire private 

contractors for work normally handled by city employees, as long as this procedure was not done to undermine the union or discriminate against its members.

Schedule “A” of the agreement contained a list and 

summarization of ordinances, resolutions, and other 

provisions which related to wages, hours, and conditions 

of employment in effect for 1965. Amendments to any 

of these designated ordinances or resolutions affecting 

the rights of either party would not be deemed a part of 

the agreement, unless agreed to by the parties in 

writing.1

Negotiations with District Council 48 for 1965 conclude

with reallocations

On April 22, the city and District Council 48 reached 

an agreement on extra pay for 85 water department employees retroactive to January 1965. The added 

compensation was given to pumping station and filtration plant employees whose previous holiday schedule 

adjustment had resulted in an alleged pay cut. On April 

24, city and union negotiators agreed on a 7-cents-anhour increase, effective July 1, for truckdrivers. Truckdrivers had received 11 cents in January as part of a 

3-percent raise for all city employees. This 7-cent raise 

used up the balance of the $150,000 set aside in the 

1965 budget to correct job inequities for AFSCME’s 10 

city locals “almost to the last penny,” the Director of 

D istrict Council 48 said. These two settlements 

concluded bargaining on holdover issues with District 

Council 48 over 1965 wage issues.

City settles with Police Association for 1965

Sim ilar im plem entation of factfinding recommendations pertaining to police personnel represented 

by the Professional Policemen’s Protective Association 

of Milwaukee resulted in the establishment of a separate 

pay plan for police classes that incorporated a salary 

increase of 5lA percent above 1965 salary rates for the 

ranks of police patrolman through lieutenant of police.2 

This new separate pay plan was approved by the 

Common Council on February 23, and became effective 

on May 16. (See table 37.) The city’s chief negotiator 

(City Personnel Director) had recommended the increase 

to the Finance Committee following negotiations earlier 

with the Policemen’s Association.

Garbage Union negotiations for 1965 postponed until

1966

As of May 1, still to be settled were 1965 wage rates 

for the members of the Garbage Collection Laborers 

Union and the Fire Fighters’ Association. The Garbage 

Collection Laborers were seeking a $20 a month raise for 

1965, in addition to the 3-percent increase granted to all 

city employees on January 1. On May 17, the union 

petitioned the WERB to mediate the wage dispute, 

claim ing that negotiations were deadlocked. City 

negotiators said 1965 wage talks were completed and 

that there was nothing to mediate. In commenting on 

the petition, the union president said that the union’s 

bargaining committee had been authorized to call a 

“work stoppage,” if the city did not consent to 

mediation or agree to set up an impartial study committee to review the union’s 1965 requests. The 

Common Council refused to agree to mediation at its 

meeting on the 17th and the union president announced 

and a “work stoppage” would begin with the morning 

pickup on Wednesday, May 19. Late on May 18, the 

union postponed the scheduled work stoppage at the 

request of the WERB chairman, who promised that a 

Board representative would be in Milwaukee the following day to look into the dispute.

City and union negotiators agreed to a truce on May 

27. They accepted a WERB recommendation to end 

negotiations for 1965 and then take up the wage issue 

anew in negotiations for 1966. In exchange for the 

union’s agreement to defer the wage issue to 1966 

negotiations, the city accepted a WERB plan to have an 

observer, not a mediator, present when the job reallocation issue was taken up.

Fire Association negotiations for 1965 rescheduled to

1966

Fire Fighters’ Local 215 sought a 1965 wage raise 

comparable to the 5H percent increase given policemen 

earlier in February. The city refused to grant a similar 

increase. In a meeting on April 30, negotiators for the 

association said they might compromise their 1965 

request if the city “came to an understanding” with the 

association in 1966 wage talks scheduled to begin later. 

The association’s attorney said that if the impasse 

continued, the association would seek factfinding on 

wage issues which the association considered unresolved 

for 1964, 1965, and 1966. The City Personnel Director, 

said the city would discuss the wage request as a 1966 

issue, if it was dropped for 1965. He added that the 

factfinding panel had not recommended the same pay 

increase for firemen as for policemen.

27

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Union submit demands for 1966 negotiations

Negotiations with certified unions on wages and 

fringe benefits for 1966 began on April 15 under the 

timetable suggested by the 1964 factfinding panel. Wage 

and fringe benefit demands for 1966 were filed on 

February 1, the deadline recommended by the 1964 

factfinding panel. A $28 monthly pay increase for all 

city employees was requested by District Council 48. 

Other requests of the Council called for a 6-hour day 

and a 30-hour workweek from Memorial Day through 

Labor Day; 2 year-written agreement, with the right to 

reopen negotiations later for 1967; a change in vacation 

schedule providing 3 weeks after 5 years of service, 4 

weeks after 12 years, and 5 weeks after 20 years; time 

and one-half for scheduled Saturday and Sunday work; 

double pay for holiday work and unscheduled weekend 

work; incorporation of all departmental rules into the 

contract; a change in the progression schedule to permit 

employees to reach the top in each pay range in 2 years 

instead of 4; payments of $25 a week for laid-off 

workers for a period coinciding with unemployment 

compensation payments; and adding the day after 

Thanksgiving, Good Friday, and employee’s birthday as 

regular days off with pay.

The Professional Policemen’s Protective Association 

asked that the minimum pay of patrolmen be increased 

from $492 to $625 a month. The association also asked 

for time and a half for overtime, excluding time spent 

testifying in court; double time for work on cancelled 

off-days; longevity pay ranging from 2 to 6 percent; a 

fourth week of vacation after 15 years service; and other 

improvements.

Milwaukee Fire Fighters’ Association Local 215 

requested that the city begin planning for a 40-hour 

workweek; establish a separate pay plan that would 

recognize the hazards and long hours of firemen’s work; 

and revise an ordinance to permit firemen to work on 

other jobs while off duty.

The. Garbage Collection Laborers Union asked for a 

25-cent-an-hour pay raise and reallocation of garbage 

collection laborers from pay range 21 ($4,007 to $5,907 

a year) to pay range 17 ($5,907 to $7,014). The Independent Union also asked for 3 weeks of vacation 

after 8 years, 4 weeks after 15 years, and 5 weeks after 

25 years of service in addition to other improvements.

Among other city unions and employee organizations 

which filed wage and benefit requests for 1966, and 

their key demands, were: International Brotherhood of 

Firemen and Oilers, Local 125-B—5 percent general wage 

increase, longevity pay, and reallocation of workers at 

incinerator plants to higher pay ranges; International 

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 195 (bridgetenders)—a 7-percent general pay increase, a 2-year collective bargaining agreement, and a reallocation of 

bridgetenders to a higher pay category; city and county 

Public Service Employees Union and Milwaukee Government Service League—a 5-percent general wage increase.

City responds to unions with counterproposal

Subsequently, on March 15, the City Personnel 

Director, in accordance with the suggested timetable, 

submitted the city’s answer to the requests made by the 

unions and employee associations on February 1. In lieu 

of a general wage increase, the city proposed to employ 

a qualified consultant to conduct a comprehensive 

classification and pay study. The City Personnel Director 

predicted that a consultant could make a preliminary 

recommendation on wages by July 1, and that he could 

have a complete report, including job reclassifications, 

ready by October 1. He also proposed: (a) an early meeting to discuss the city’s fiscal position, including the tax 

rate, tax base, and other economic factors; (b) establishment of a special governmental institute to assist the city 

and unions “in developing greater clarity and understanding on a complete list of subjects that are 

negotiable” under municipal labor law; (c) modifying 

the city’s pension plan to increase pension benefits; (d) 

establishing a 5-percent service charge for dues checkoff, to pay for processing costs; (e) eliminating coffee 

breaks, or as an alternative, limiting breaks to 10 

minutes; and (f) initiating operational studies on a 

frequent basis “to assure that work done by city employees is competitive on a cost basis with similar work 

performed in private industry.” The city’s response also 

proposed (a) that salary increases be based on merit 

rather than longevity; (b) elimination of pay for the first 

2 days of sick leave; (c) changing the basis for computing 

overtime for certain workers in the Department of 

Public Works to provide a true time and one-half rate 

rather than the current rate of 1.56; (d) to limit salary 

payments under the injury pay provision to 70 percent 

of base salary; (e) to eliminate paid lunch periods for 

certain employees except those who work on a threeshift operation, in which case, the paid lunch period 

would not exceed 15 minutes; (f) to limit the attendance 

of employees at meetings of city boards, commissions, 

and committees to their own time; and (g) to discontinue the practice of permitting some employees to 

attend union conventions on city time.

The Director of District Council 48 said the city 

failed to answer any of his union’s requests, but listed 

items it would take away. He also added that the city’s 

answer would violate the timetable for negotiations 

recommended by the factfinding panel.

28

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Division of Labor Relations created

In April, the City Personnel Director had submitted 

his letter of resignation from the added duties of chief 

labor negotiator. The Common Council did not accept 

his resignation. Instead, on April 20, it approved a 

resolution formally establishing a city negotiating team 

which would consist of the City Personnel Director (as 

chief negotiator) and a new position of labor negotiator, 

to be filled by the present Finance Committee Chairman; the City Attorney would provide such legal service 

and advice as required and requested by the negotiating 

team. It was understood that the City Personnel Director 

would continue temporarily as Chief Labor Negotiator, 

and he did so for several more months. In an ordinance 

adopted on June 15, the Common Council created a new 

Division of Labor Relations in the Office of the City 

Clerk to be headed by the city’s new labor negotiator. 

At the same time, the council approved a resolution 

creating a new negotiating team consisting of the new 

labor negotiator as chief negotiator and the City Personnel Director, with the City Attorney’s office to provide 

any required or requested legal service and advice. It 

referred back to the Finance Committee a resolution 

that would have given the new labor negotiator authority to start legal action in case of a strike. (Section

111.70, Wisconsin Statutes, prohibits strikes by municipal 

employee unions, but no strike penalties are provided 

under the State labor law.) Wisconsin municipalities have 

the option of seeking an injunction against striking 

unions under other State statutes, but this had never 

been found politically feasible by the city. In another 

action, the Council shelved a proposal for a Labor Peace 

Agency; this had been a major recommendation of the 

factfinding panel. On June 15, the Finance Committee 

Chairman resigned as an alderman and was appointed to 

the new labor negotiator post after the Mayor signed the 

ordinance creating the position.3

Negotiations for 1966 show little progress

Very little progress in bargaining on 1966 wage issues 

was made between April 15 and July 15, the factfinding 

panel’s suggested deadline for completing bargaining. 

Under the timetable, if basic agreement had not been 

reached by July 15, mediation was to begin.4 Unresolved issues from 1964 had kept negotiators working 

until late May. Furthermore, the chief negotiator (City 

Personnel Director) and the director of District Council 

48 had been kept busy going to Madison numerous times 

to testify before legislative committees on two important bills.5

On June 7, negotiators for the city had agreed 

tentatively to accept District Council 48’s proposal for a 

3-year labor agreement. Under a schedule accepted by 

both parties, the Common Council would approve the 

3-year contract by June 31, 1965. The council would 

have to ratify the terms of the contract which applied to 

the ensuing year by July 31 each year. Annual ratification was necessary, because the city’s budget was 

computed on a calendar-year basis and also because 

Section 111.70 limits written contracts to 1 year’s duration. The union would have the right to cancel the 

contract within 10 days after July 31, if the Common 

Council refused to ratify the terms of the contract for 

the ensuing year.

City and District Council 48 extend timetable

Early in July, the city and District Council 48 agreed 

that it was futile to recognize the July 15 th cut-off date 

for negotiations. They agreed that mediation was not 

necessary, because the hard bargaining period had not 

been reached. By mutual consent they postponed the 

deadline indefinitely. The city, on July 16, offered District Council 48 a 3-year contract calling for no pay raise 

in 1966, a 2 percent or 4-cents-an-hour raise in 1967, 

and 2Vi percent or 5-cents-an-hour more in 1968. The 

proposal fell far short of the union’s latest request for a 

20-cent-an-hour wage increase in each of 3-years. The 

Director of District Council 48 called the city’s counteroffer completely unacceptable. The city also offered a 

fifth week of vacation after 30 years of service; an increase in the maximum, number of days of hospital care 

under Blue Cross-Blue Shield coverage, from 120 days to 

365 days; an increase in differential pay for scheduled 

Sunday work from 10-cents-an-hour to 15 cents; a 

$40,000 inequity fund to cover items such as new job 

classifications and clothing allowances; full tuition reimbursement for employees who completed courses approved by the city; and a change in the rate for overtime 

work to time and one-half rather than 1.56 for some job 

categories.

The city proposed that reviews of the contract be 

made before July 31 of each year in order to extend the 

agreement through 1967 and 1968. If, however, the 

Council’s Finance (Labor Policy) Committee failed to 

act before July 31, the union could terminate the 

contract within 10 days. Furthermore, if the Common 

Council did not adopt the financial terms at its annual 

budget meeting in November, the union could terminate 

the agreement within 10 days after the passage of the 

budget.

29

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
District Council 48 presents counteroffer to city

In reply to the city’s latest offer, District Council 48, 

on July 20, asked for a 3-year contract calling for a 

20-cent-per-hour raise in 1966, and 18-cent-per-hour 

increases in 1967 and 1968. The union also reduced its 

demand for overtime pay to time and one-quarter pay 

for scheduled Saturday and Sunday work in 1966; time 

and one-quarter pay for scheduled Saturday work, and 

time and one-half for scheduled Sunday work in 1967; 

and time and one-half pay for all scheduled Saturday 

and Sunday work in 1968. Initially, the union had 

requested time and one-half for all scheduled weekend 

work in each of the 3 years. The union also rejected the 

city proposed change in the overtime rate of pay for 

certain job categories. The union’s counterproposal also 

included an anti-poverty program wherein certain city 

employees would work only 30 hours a week between 

Memorial Day and Labor Day, but would get paid for 

40, thus making room for the hiring of needy persons on 

a part-time basis.

The city, on July 28, presented a slightly-increased 

wage offer to District Council 48. The city negotiating 

team proposed a 3- year contract with no pay raise 

the first year; 2 percent or 4 cents an hour on January 1, 

1967; and additional 2 percent increases on January 1, 

1968, and on July 1, 1968. The city’s previous offer was 

similar, except that it provided for only one increase in 

the third year of 2 lA percent or 5 cents on January 1, 

1968. The city also offered to set up a fund of $15,000 

a year to finance wage inequity adjustments; it previously had offered $40,000 for the 3 years.

City requests mediation in negotiations with District

Council 48

On August 10, the city petitioned the WERB to 

mediate the slow moving negotiations with District 

Council 48. The city’s action was rejected promptly 

by the union. The union’s director told the city’s negotiators that he was prepared to continue negotiations, 

and charged that the city was in violation of the contract which called for the conclusion of negotiations 

prior to a request for mediation. He added that he would 

petition for an impartial arbitrator to determine whether 

the city was violating the contract. The Labor Negotiator 

replied that he was not suggesting the termination of negotiations, but that the city’s negotiating team viewed 

mediation as an extension of the bargaining process, 

with a third party present. The union’s director said that 

the union was preparing a counterproposal to the city’s 

latest wage offer that had been made the day before, 

but the union was ready to continue negotiations on

other 1966 demands. The WERB chairman, on August 11, 

directed a board member to meet with city and union 

negotiators in an attempt to resolve the impasse. By 

mutual agreement, the parties postponed negotiations 

until early in September because of vacation schedules.

Tentative 3-year agreement reached with District

Council 48

The city and District Council 48, with the assistance 

of a WERB member participating in the negotiations, 

on September 21, announced tentative agreement on a 

new 3-year contract. The settlement was reached after 

about a dozen meetings over a 4-week period, and 

without deadline pressures, strike threats, or the use of 

mediators. The contract provided for wage increases of 

10-cents-an-hour or 3 percent, whichever was greater in 

1966, 1967, and 1968, for about 3,500 members 

represented by the union. The contract also added a 

fifth week of vacation in 1967 for employees with 30 

years of service, improved holiday procedures, and 

elim inated th e social security offset formula in 

computing pensions, beginning in 1967. The city agreed 

to continue to pay the full cost of hospitalizationsurgical care insurance and to pay any additional costs 

that might develop over the next 3 years. The city also 

guaranteed that the present employee contribution of 21 

cents per thousand dollars of group life insurance would 

not be increased during the term of the contract. The 

union recognized the city’s right to establish reasonable 

work rules, but any dispute on their reasonableness 

would be submitted to factfinding. Provision was made 

for reopening the contract to negotiate an agency shop 

agreement, if the State Legislature should legalize such 

agreements.6

Tentative 3-year agreements reached with Health

Department unions

On September 23, the city and the Staff Nurses 

Council of Milwaukee reached a tentative agreement on 

a 3-year contract calling for a wage increase of 10 cents 

an hour or 3 percent, whichever was greater, each year. 

The agreement, covering about 175 Health Department 

nurses, also provided for a fifth week of vacation after 

30 years of service and other improvements in fringe 

benefits similar to the terms in the tentative agreement 

between the city and District Council 48. Subsequently, 

the city reached tentative agreements with the Association of Physicians and Dentists and with the Association of Scientific Personnel that included wage and 

fringe benefit provisions for 1966, 1967, and 1968 

similar to the terms in the city’s tentative agreement 

with District Council 48.

30

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Tentative 1-year agreement reached with Police Association

Negotiators for the city and Policemen’s Protective 

Association reached a tentative agreement on a 1-year 

contract on September 29. It provided for a wage 

increase of 10-cents-an-hour or 3 percent, whichever was 

greater, effective January 1, 1966 for about 1,800 

patrolmen and sergeants. A 3-year contract was not 

possible because of pending surveys on pension 

proposals and survivorship benefits which the union did 

not want to freeze for 3 years.

City and four unions agree to W ERB mediation

The WERB announced, on October 22, that the city 

had consented to mediation with four unions who 

claimed that their requests to reopen medicare negotiations to allow some city employees to become eligible 

for medicare had been rejected. The four unions, 

representing about 300 employees, included Local 195, 

IBEW, representing bridge tenders; Local 494, IBEW, 

representing fire alarm dispatchers in the Fire Departm ent; Local 17, BSEIU, representing natatorium 

workers; and Local 125-B, IBFO, representing incineration plant workers. The city’s final offers to the unions 

in September had not contained any provisions for 

employees not under social security to enroll in 1966 

and become eligible for medicare. When enrollment had 

been opened earlier, medicare had not yet become a 

reality, and some employees had declined to enroll.

City holds public hearing on tentative agreements with

five unions

The first public hearing before the Finance 

Committee on tentative agreements with five unions 

representing more than 5,000 employees was held on 

November 1. Contract proposals, which had been 

negotiated earlier by the city’s bargaining team with the 

five unions were open for discussion and action by the 

committee. The unions involved were: District Council 

48, the Staff Nurses Council, the Association of 

Physicians and Dentists, the Association of Scientific 

Personnel, and the Professional Policemen’s Protective 

Association. The tentative agreement with the District 

Council 48 had set the pattern for memorandums of 

understanding with three of the other four unions. The 

committee on November 2 committed itself to granting 

a 3-percent or 10-cents-an-hour raise, whichever was 

greater, to all employees.

City and four more unions reach tentative agreement

On November 5, the city’s negotiating team and four 

more unions announced that they had reached agreement on 3-year contracts providing wage increases of 3 

percent or 10 cents an hour, whichever was greater, in 

each year. The unions were Local 17, BSEIU; Local 195, 

IBEW; Local 494, IBEW; and Local 75, Journeyman 

Plumbers and Gas Fitters Union.

The Common Council, on November 19, approved 

the 1966 city budget following a routine public hearing 

on November 9. Included were funds for 1966 wage 

increases and fringe benefits previously approved and 

recommended by the Finance Committee. The money 

covered all city employees, including firemen and 

garbage collectors, as well as unaffilated employees. All 

of the unions except Milwaukee Fire Fighters’ Association and Public Employees’ Union No. 617 either had 

signed contracts with the city or were close to agreement.

Negotiations with the firefighters and garbage collectors were deadlocked. The dispute with the firemen 

was in factfinding and the garbage collectors’ impasse 

was in mediation at the end of 1965.

Fire Fighters' Association heads towards impasse

In a meeting on June 11, representatives of the Fire 

Fighters’ Association had told city negotiators that they 

would consider their 1966 negotiations at a standstill 

and would petition for factfinding unless the city was 

ready to raise firemen’s 1966 wages to the same level as 

policemen. The association’s ultimatum came after the 

city had proposed a 1966 wage package consisting of a 

$10 monthly increase, a 10 cents hourly weekend differential, holiday time equal to that of other city employees, a separate pay plan, and other improvements. 

The City Personnel Director said the city was ready to 

bargain and asked the firemen to present a counteroffer. 

The association’s attorney replied that firemen were 

entitled to $50 a month more. This raise would have 

brought salaries for firemen above the level of policemen. The Finance Committee Chairman said the attorney’s response implied that the union was not 

prepared to negotiate. The membership of the association in meetings on June 14 and 15, rejected the 

city’s offer and authorized its bargaining committee to 

seek factfinding from the WERB if the city did not 

grant the $50 raise.

31

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Fire Fighters' Association favors factfinding solution

On August 18, the labor negotiator said that city 

negotiators and representatives of the Fire Fighters’ Association had reached a deadlock in negotiations on 

1966 wages and working conditions. The impasse came 

at the end of talks before a WERB mediator. A 

spokesman for the Fire Fighters said that the association 

was considering petitioning the WERB to intiate factfinding. On September 7, it was announced by the 

WERB Chairman that the Fire Fighters’ Association had 

asked the board for factfinding. The city’s bargaining 

team, in a letter to the WERB on September 11, argued 

that the association’s request failed to set forth any 

issues upon which an impasse existed. The letter further 

stated that factfinding should be limited to unresolved 

1966 issues, because the 1964 factfinding panel had 

reviewed earlier disputes. The association, in its petition, 

asked that the factfinder investigate 1964 and 1965 

issues which centered on the union’s demand that fire 

fighters receive pay increases similar to the 5H percent 

salary raise granted to policemen in the spring. The 

WERB scheduled a mediation hearing for September 17. 

Early in October, the WERB agreed to appoint a factfinder after the WERB chairman met with both parties 

in a mediation session.

At a factfinding session on October 20, it was announced that the city was willing to grant a 3 percent 

increase to firefighters for 1966. In addition to a general 

raise, the city also offered Local 215 a $5 monthly pay 

increase in lieu of weekend differential pay, additional 

pay for firemen called from off duty status for special 

circumstances, and a plan to make promotions from old 

eligibility lists until new lists were available.

Garbage union asks court to enforce factfinders'

recomme ndations

Earlier the city’s labor negotiators and the Garbage 

Collection Laborers Independent Local Union had 

reached an impasse on August 2, when they ended 

mediation hearings on job reallocations. The union also 

sought a 25-cents-an-hour increase for 1966. Mediation 

talks had started on July 19 after the union members 

had given their executive board the authority to call a 

strike. The city’s Labor Negotiator said the city would 

not oppose factfinding by the WERB if the union 

wanted to file a petition for such action. He rejected the 

union’s proposal to submit the reallocation question to 

an impartial study committee for binding recommendations. Subsequently, the union asked for a writ of 

mandamus from the Circuit Court ordering the city to 

carry out the recommendation of the factfinding panel

to refer the reallocation issue to a study committee. The 

city then filed a motion to quash the writ on the 

grounds that the recommendation of the factfinders 

placed no legal requirements on either party. The Court 

did not order the city to create the study committee, 

but said the Common Council should commit itself on 

the factfinding panel’s recommendations. On September 

21, the Council acted by approving a recommendation of 

its Finance Committee rejecting the union’s demand for 

a reallocation study committee and a change in work 

assignments—the two recommendations made by the 

factfinding panel in December 1964.

Independent Garbage Union affiliates with AFL-CIO,

wins election challenge

A representation election among garbage collection 

personnel that had been petitioned by Local 1203 of 

District Council 48 late in 1964 was held on October 18 

and 19. About 3 weeks before the election, the 

Independent Garbage Workers Union, in response to the 

unanimous vote of its members on September 24, was 

granted a charter as Public Employees’ Union No. 61 by 

the Laborers’ International Union of North America 

(AFL-CIO).8 Local 61 won the election 213 to 70. (See 

appendix J.) Earlier, on March, 25, bargaining rights for 

204 City engineers and technicians were won by an 

independent association-Technicians, Engineers and 

Architects of Milwaukee (TEAM). The vote was 119 for 

TEAM and 68 for Local 1238, District Council 48.

Local 61 again asks courts to enforce factfinders'

recommendations

On December 2, Public Employees’ Union No. 61, in 

a new attempt to gain higher wages for the city’s garbage 

collectors, again asked the Circuit Court for a writ of 

mandamus to order the city to refer the union’s request 

for the reallocation of garbage collectors to a higher pay 

range to a study committee. This time, the union 

contended that a resolution passed by the Common 

Council on November 16, 1964, provided $180,000 in 

the 1965 budget to cover alleged inequities involving 

employees except those represented by District Council 

48. A $150,000 fund had been established for District 

Council 48 and had been used for its designated purpose. 

The union also charged that the November 16, 1964, 

resolution required the city to refer alleged inequities to 

a study committee. The union also alleged that, because 

the study committee was not established, payments 

from the fund would be illegal and void. Oral arguments on the union’s request were scheduled for 

December 20 by a judge of the Circuit Court.9

32

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
— F O O TN O T E S—

Data provided in 1965 to the city negotiating team Classification Division’s survey o f 27 major cities and

on wages and fringe benefits were m ainly based on the from the BLS M ilwaukee area wage surveys.

1 The contract also included a unique statement that would

not be found in private sector bargaining agreements. The statement reflects the importance of State and municipal law and

reads:

This agreement shall in all respects.. . . be subject and

subordinate to the provisions of the Milwaukee City

Charter in effect at the time of the execution of this

Agreement and shall also be subject to the rules and

regulations of the City Service Commission of the city of

Milwaukee, within its statutory jurisdiction, and shall

further be subject and subordinate to the statutes of the

State of Wisconsin.

2 This separate pay plan incorporated 15 pay ranges covering

all police service ranks from police matron (pay range P-15) to

chief of police (pay range P-1). The SVi percent increase was in

addition to the 3-percent increase granted all city employees

(except prevailing wage employees) for 1965, and applied only

to the ranks of police patrolman (pay range P-14) through

lieutenant of police (pay range P-9).

The city and the association, in reaching their first memorandum of agreement, recognized that the question of the appropriate recognition unit for personnel in the Police Department had not been resolved. Both parties understood that this

matter was still before the WERB for determination, and that

neither party had waived its right before the Board.

3Because of restrictions under Section 66.11 of the state

statutes, which prohibit an elected official from being appointed

to a position created during his term of office, Section 111.70 of

the Wisconsin Statutes subsequently was amended to permit this

appointment. The appointment was made under Section 63.41

of the state statutes and involves Civil Service tenure.

4 The panel’s recommended negotiating timetable was

included in the written agreement with District Council 48 that

had gone into effect on May 7.

5 One of the bills provided for an agency shop for governmental employees; it was backed by District Council 48 and

opposed by the city. It would have enabled municipal unions to

establish agency shops and collect initiation fees and dues from

nonmembers. The second bill would have made City Service

Commission rulings subject to Common Council approval; it was

opposed by the city and backed by the union.

6 The agency shop bill then before the State Legislature was

vetoed by Governor Knowles on December 15, after the measure

had passed the Assembly 86 to 9 and the Senate on a voice vote.

The governor’s veto later was overridden by a 73 to 23 vote of

the Assembly on May 17, 1966. The Senate, on June 1, upheld

his veto by a 2 vote margin. The vote was 20 to 12 in favor of

overriding the veto, but was short of the required two-thirds.

7 The Garbage Collection Laborers Independent Local Union

had been granted a charter as Public Employees’ Union No. 61

by the Laborers’ International Union of North America

(AFL-CIO) in September 1965.

8See footnote 2, p. (20).

9On May 5, 1966, the Circuit Court dismissed the union’s

writ of mandamus, ruling that the city had complied with the

legal requirements set down in the previous agreement with the

union to the extent that the Common Council had acted upon

the requests for resolving inequities in salary schedules by

causing the funds set aside to be transferred to the general fund.

The Common Council in September, 1965, had approved its

Finance Committee’s recommendation rejecting the union’s

request for a study committee and a change in work assignments

which the factfinding panel had recommended in December

1964. This action was taken in response to the Court’s earlier

ruling that the Common Council should commit itself on the

panel’s recommendations.

33

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1966 Developments

First-year major wage and fringe benefit changes 

agreed to in the 3-year contracts or memorandums of 

understanding signed late in 1965, and effective the first 

pay period of 1966 included: (1) a general wage increase 

of 3 percent or 10-cents-an-hour, whichever was greater; 

(2) a provision that when Christmas and New Year’s Day 

fell on a Saturday, they would be observed on the 

following Monday; (3) an increase of 2-cents-an-hour in 

the weekend shift differential (from 10 cents to 12 

cents-an-hour); (4) expansion in sick leave provisions to 

allow use of sick leave for necessary absence due to the 

death of a mother-in-law or father-in-law; and (5) an increase in Blue Cross-Blue Shield coverage to include 

pediatric care. These changes were extended to all general city employees, except garbage collection laborers, 

by action of the Common Council.

Terms of the 1-year memorandum of understanding 

with the Policemen’s Association also provided for a pay 

increase of 3 percent or 10 cents, whichever was greater, 

for 1966 and for podiatric care under Blue Cross-Blue 

Shield coverage. Police aides, police matrons, and Police 

Department civilian employees were made eligible for 

the increased weekend differential pay of 12-cents-anhour.

City and Fire Fighters' Association reach agreement for

1966

On April 28, the city and the Milwaukee Fire 

Fighters’ Association signed a memorandum of understanding after factfinding proceedings. In addition to a 

1966 salary adjustment of 3 percent of $8 biweekly, 

whichever was greater, the city granted $5 a month in 

lieu of weekend differential pay and $12 a month in lieu 

of 2 off-days for all assigned to a regularly scheduled 

56-hour workweek. These changes were retroactive to 

the first 1966 pay period. The agreement, which was for 

the remainder of 1966, also included lump-sum payments for firefighting personnel on the payroll during 

1964 and 1965, who were assigned to a 56-hour workweek, in lieu of weekend differential payments for those 

years, and an increase in hospital coverage to include 

podiatric care. The parties also agreed that the following 

classes of firefighting personnel could be broken out of 

the general city pay ranges and would be placed in a 

separate fire service pay range: fire lieutenant, motor 

pump operator, firefighter, fire prevention lieutenant, 

fire prevention officer, and marine fireman. (See table

38.) These provisions basically carried out the recommendations of the factfinder in the second factfinding 

proceeding between the city and the Fire Fighters’ 

Association.

Agreement with Garbage Collection Laborers averts

strike

The City and Public Employees’ Union No. 61, 

Laborers’ International Union of North America (AFLCIO), ended a long wage dispute when an agreement was 

reached on August 1 covering the remainder of 1966, 

plus 1967 and 1968. The settlement followed an allnight mediation session that ended at 5:45 a.m., minutes 

before the start of a threatened walkout. The terms of 

th is agreement, which covered garbage collection 

laborers, called for a 10-cents-an-hour increase for the 

remainder of 1966, and a 10-cent-hourly increase in 

1967 and again in 1968. An additional 3-cents-an-hour 

was granted for the duration of the 3-year agreement 

instead of retroactivity pay for the 7 months that had 

passed since the 10-cent-an-hour increase that had been 

granted to other general city employees, effective pay 

period 1, 1966. Contract terms covering fringe benefits 

were essentially the same as those in the 3-year agreements concluded with the other unions in 1965. 

Included was a no-strike clause without the monetary 

penalty present in the written agreements with other 

general city employee unions. The contract also 

provided for creation of a joint union-management 

committee to study safety hazards and to improve work 

procedures in conjunction with discussions of the 

union’s reallocation requests in future negotiations with 

the city.

City fails to reach agreement with Police and Fire

Associations

Failure of the city and the bargaining representatives 

for policemen and fireman to agree on wage and fringe 

adjustments for 1967 resulted in mediation under the 

auspices of the WERB. Mediation was still in progress at 

the end of 1966 with representatives of the Fire 

Fighters’ Association. Failure to reach a settlement 

th ro u g h m ed iatio n w ith representatives of the 

Professional Policemen’s Protective Association resulted 

in factfinding proceedings which were in progress at the 

close of the year.

34

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Negotiators for the city and the Policemen’s Association had reached a deadlock in bargaining after a 

second attempt at mediation on September 16. A 

member of the WERB who was helping mediate the 

dispute, along with a state mediator, told the parties that 

factfinding would start immediately. The association had 

petitioned the WERB to approve a factfinder a week 

before. The main issues were wages and retirement 

eligibility requirements. The Policemen’s Association, in 

its bargaining demands for 1967 submitted in February, 

had asked the city to grant patrolmen an annual range of 

$6,900 to $8,400 the first year and of $7,600 to $9,200 

the second year in a request for a 2-year contract.1 

Other major improvements asked by the Policemen’s 

Association were: (1) 4 weeks of vacation after 15 

years of service and 5 weeks after 20 years (policemen 

were getting 4 weeks after 20 years); (2) a change in 

retirement eligibility requirements so policemen could 

retire after 25 years regardless of age rather than after 25 

years but not before age 57; (3) a 2 percent pension 

increase for each year in excess of 25 years; (4) an 

increase in differential pay for motorcycle duty from 

$10 to $25 a month; and (5) full payment of tuition for 

accredited college courses on police subjects. The city 

initially had offered a 2-year contract calling for 

annual raises of 3 percent but not less than 10-cents-anhour. Later the Policemen’s Association rejected an offer 

of a 10 percent raise over a 2-year period.2

The city’s last wage offer to negotiators for the Fire 

Fighters’ Association was made on December 6 and 

included a 4 percent pay raise in 1967 and 3 percent in

1968 to employees classified as firefighting personnel. 

Fire department civilian employees (mechanics, typists, 

stenographers, and clerks) were offered a raise of 3 

percent or 10 cents an hour, whichever was greater, in 

both years. The Fire Fighters’ Association initially had 

asked for (1) a maximum annual salary rate of $9,500 (a 

28-percent increase in the maximum salary) for firefighters and comparable increases for all members of the 

bargaining unit; (2) a 40-hour workweek; (3) longevity 

pay ranging from a minimum of $18 a month after 7 

years of service to a maximum of $54 a month after 16 

years of service through the rank of lieutenant; (4) a 

change in retirement eligibility requirements to permit 

retirement after 25 years of service regardless of age plus 

improvements in retirement benefits; (5) 2 additional 

workdays off in lieu of holidays; (6) a change in vacations to provide 1 additional day after 5 years of service, 

1 additional day after 10 years, and 1 additional day 

after 20 years; and (7) a new grievance and arbitration 

procedure calling for a joint committee to discuss 

grievances with a right to arbitration.

One representation election was held and three additional representation cases were pending before the 

WERB at the end of the year.3

The city’s negotiating team again utilized the Classification Division’s annual survey of wages and fringe 

benefits in 27 major cities and the regular BLS Milwaukee area wage survey together with the special BLS 

survey of large Milwaukee firms conducted under 

contract for the city.

— F O O TN O T E S—

‘The second written agreement between the city and the

Policemen’s Protective Association signed on September 30,

1965, was a 1-year memorandum of understanding that expired

on December 31, 1966.

2 Members of the PPPA at two meetings on November 25,

voted to reject a memorandum of understanding signed on

November 21 by city and Association negotiating teams, by a

vote of 575 to 62.

3 The WERB scheduled an election on February 23 after

District Council 48 and Local 139, International Union of

Operating Engineers (AFL-CIO) jointly petitioned for representation. The unions sought the joint representation after an

AFL-CIO referee recommended this arrangement as a means

of settling a jurisdictional dispute that dated back to early 1964.

It was agreed that Local 139 would receive dues from those

employees who worked more than 50 percent of the time on

heavy equipment and Local 33 of District Council 48 would

collect dues from those employees who spent most of their time

driving trucks. Forty-seven equipment operators mainly in the

Bureau of Municipal Equipment voted for joint representation

by the two Unions, and two voted for no representation. A

memorandum of understanding was concluded with the

representatives of this new bargaining unit on June 27. This

agreement, effective through May 31, 1967, covered prevailing

wage equ ipm en t operators who are outside the scope of this

study.

35

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1967 Developments

The year 1967 marked the second year of the 

1966-68 period covered by the 3-year contracts or 

memorandums of understanding concluded with most of 

the labor organizations in 1965. Under the terms of 

these agreements and the agreement with Public 

Employees’ Union 61 reached on August 1, 1966, 

salaries were increased 3 percent or 10-cents-an-hour 

whichever was greater, and various fringe benefits were 

further liberalized beginning with the first pay period in 

1967 for most city employees except police, fire, and 

prevailing wage employees. The Common Council also 

approved a similar salary increase and identical fringe 

benefits for general employees not included in the 

bargaining units.

Important changes in fringe benefits included a fifth 

week of vacation after 30 or more years of service, an 

additional holiday on the Friday after Thanksgiving for 

new employees (current employees received this as a 

regular holiday in exchange for a floating holiday 

previously granted), and the use of 1 day of sick leave to 

attend the funeral of an employee’s grandparent. Hospital care benefits were increased from k maximum of 

120 days to a maximum of 365 days for all conditions 

except for nervous and mental care, which were 

increased from 70 days to 120 days. The allowance for 

diagnostic services was increased from $50 a year to a 

maximum of $100. The weekend shift differential was 

increased from 12-cents-an-hour to 15-cents-an-hour. 

The pension plan was amended effective with pay period 

1, 1967, to completely eliminate the social security 

offset reduction. Employees who had retired in 1966 

were made eligible to receive the increased retirement 

benefit resulting from elimination of the social security 

offset, effective with the first 1967 pay period. The 70 

percent pension limitation, however, was not removed.

City and Fire Fighters' Association reach agreement

early in 1967

During 1967, five contracts were signed.1 On January 9 the negotiating team for the Fire Fighters’ Association and city negotiators signed a memorandum of 

understanding for the year 1967. The parties agreed 

that, effective with pay period 2, 1967, salaries for the 

following classes of firefighting personnel would be 

increased by 4 percent: fire lieutenant, motor pump 

operator, firefighter, fire prevention lieutenant, fire 

prevention officer, and marine fireman. Effective with

pay period 1, 1967, salaries for civilian members of the 

bargaining unit (most of whom were scheduled to work 

a 40 hour week)—such as Fire Department mechanics, 

repairmen, typists, stenographers, clerks, and custodial 

w o r k e r s —w e r e i n c r e a s e d by 3 percent or 

10-cents-an-hour, whichever was greater. The city agreed 

to reduce the 56-hour average work week to an average 

of 55.079 hours by granting 2 additional days off during 

1967 on scheduled duty days to members of the Firefighting Division in the bargaining unit. It was further 

agreed that employees in those classifications regularly 

assigned a scheduled 55.079-hour workweek should be 

paid $2.30 biweekly in lieu of weekend differential. In 

addition, they were to receive $5.52 biweekly in lieu of 

actually taking the 2 additional duty days off. And, 

for continuing to work a 56-hour average workweek in 

1967, the employees would receive extra duty pay for 

those added hours worked over and above 55.079 hours 

on a prorata straight time basis. Maximum vacation 

benefits were increased to 12 working days off after 30 

years’ service for personnel on the new 55.079-hour 

average workweek; the maximum had been 10 working 

days after 20 years’ service. Fringe benefit changes for 

civilian employees included a fifth week of vacation 

after 30 or more years and the Friday after Thanksgiving 

as an added holiday for new employees to correspond 

with 1967 vacation and holiday changes for general city 

employees. Similarly, the 1967 improvement in the 

pension plan to elimate the social security offset payment that the city had negotiated with the other unions 

was extended to civilian members of the bargaining unit. 

Blue Cross-Blue Shield benefits were changed to provide 

additional hospital care and the maximum payment for 

diagnostic service was increased from $50 to $100 a year 

for both fire service and civilian employees. The agreement also provided for increased widow surviorship 

benefits, a change in recall pay, and tuition reimbursement by the city up to a maximum of $150 a year. The 

city further agreed to establish before December 1, 

1967, for members of the bargaining unit a grievance 

procedure that would be consistant and not in conflict 

with state law, charter ordinances, Fire and Police 

Commission rules and regulations, and the authority of 

the Fire Chief.

City and Police Association agree on 2-year pact

Following factfinding initiated in 1966, a settlement 

was reached with the Professional Policemen’s Protective

36

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Association. A 2-year contract was signed on July 7, 

retroactive to January 1, 1967, and extending through 

December 31, 1968. Terms of the police agreement 

included an annual salary increase of $1,077.24 for 1967 

and 1968 for all ranks from police patrolmen through 

sergeant; additional surviorship benefits; establishment 

of a committee to study the merits of various proposed 

educational plans for police; and increased clothing 

allowances for detectives and policewomen. Other 

important contract changes included a fifth week of 

vacation after 30 or more years of service, additional 

days of hospital care, and higher diagnostic service payments under Blue Cross-Blue Shield for police service 

personnel.

Salaries of civilian employees in the Police Department for 1967 had been increased 3 percent or 

10-cents-an-hour, whichever was greater, effective with 

the first 1967 pay period. This change was made by 

action of the Common Council on recommendation of 

the Police Chief. Changes in those fringe benefits that 

were the same as for general city employees, also had 

been approved earlier by the Common Council on 

recommendation of the Police Chief, effective with pay 

period 1, 1967.

Fire Associations sign memorandums of understanding

for 1968

A 1-year memorandum of understanding covering 

1968 was signed on October 10 with the Milwaukee Fire 

Fighters’ Association. All added wage differentials that 

existed in 1967 were incorporated into the base salary 

schedule and maximum salaries were increased $668.70 

a year effective with the first pay period in 1968 for 

ranks from firefighter through fire lieutenant.3 It was 

further agreed that employees assigned to the Firefighting Division would continue to work a 56-hour 

average work week in 1968 as in 1967. A committee was 

to be established to study a possible future reduction in 

the average workweek. Salaries for Fire Department 

civilian employees were increased by 3 percent or 10 

cents an hour, whichever was greater, effective pay 

period 1, 1968. The Fire Fighters’ Association had 

demanded a 1968 maximum yearly salary of $9,500 for 

firefighters compared with the 1967 maximum of 

$7,513. It also repeated its request that the workweek 

be cut from 56 hours to 40 hours with compensation for 

work in excess of 40 hours. Other major demands 

included: (1) retirement after 25 years of service regardless of age; (2) the same number of guaranteed holidays 

off as for general city employees with time and a half 

pay for holidays worked.

An agreement also was negotiated with Local 1037 of 

the Uniformed Pilots and Marine Engineers Association 

incorporating a similar salary increase for 1968. Both 

associations in the Fire Department received increases in 

surviorship benefits comparable to those negotiated by 

the Police Association earlier in the year.

Factfinding by W ERC employed in District Council 48

local issues

On August 17, a factfinding hearing was convened 

with Local 40 of District Council 48 to settle a deadlock 

over the proper pay rate for nine positions of District 

Assessor. The factfinders’s decision, agreed to by both 

parties, recommended no pay adjustment for 1967; however, in 1968, the District Assessors were to be reallocated from pay range 26 to 27. A decision in another 

factfinding case heard by the WERC4 on October 10, 

involving a demand for the reallocation of building 

inspectors from pay range 18 to 20, was pending at the 

close of the year.

District Council 48 submits demands for 1969 in

advance

District Council 48 on October 10, in an unexpected 

move before the Common Council began hearings on the 

city’s 1968 budget, submitted a list of 1969 contract 

demands that included a 90-cents-an-hour general wage 

increase for 1969. The union’s director said that 1969 

negotiating demands were being made far in advance of 

the February 1, 1968 deadline for such demands so that 

the Common Council could prepare for the financial 

effect of the union’s demands. He said that the Common 

Council could, by providing additional money in the 

1968 budget contingency fund, spread the cost over 2 

years. Other demands included a cost-of-living wage 

escalation clause, major changes in hospital and surgical 

care coverage, full payment for $10,000 of group life 

insurance, longer vacations, and revisions in the pension 

system. A complete list of demands was to be submitted 

in January 1968, the director added.

Garbage workers union attempts to reopen 3-year

contract for 1968

On January 30, Public Employees Union Local 61, in 

an attempt to reopen bargaining on the 1968 terms of its 

3-year agreement signed on September 27, 1966, had 

submitted a list of negotiating demands for 1968. The 

union’s letter included a request for a reallocation of 

garbage collection laborers from pay range 21 to 17, plus 

an additional 25 cents an hour in wage increases and an

37

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
escalator clause for 1968, in addition to many other 

demands. The union said that it was seeking new 

bargaining on 1968 terms because of the increased cost 

of living, and added that the terms initially agreed to 

approved for 1968 were therefore inadequate. The city 

replied that the contract was binding on both the union 

and city until December 31,1968, and called the union’s 

attempt to reopen it “an act of extreme bad faith.” The 

fact finder’s report of July 1966, that had served as a 

basis for the garbage collectors contract, had recommended a 3-year agreement comparable to the one 

between the city and District Council 48. When the city 

refused to reopen negotiations for 1968, the union filed 

a prohibited practices complaint.5

Common Council approves new management rates

The Common Council in July approved a revision in 

the top ten pay ranges in the salary schedule covering 

general employees to become effective with the first 

1968 pay period. This action approved the salary rates 

and reallocations recommended by the Public Administration Service, and included a 3 percent adjustment of 

these rates in recognition of the 1-year delay in 

implementation.6

W ERC establishes one-man craft bargaining unit

During 1967, two of three representation cases that 

were pending at the end of 1966 were resolved. In the 

Sheet Metal Workers’ case, the city’s position was denied, 

and a new craft bargaining unit was established. On 

February 16, 1967, a representation election was held 

among Fire Equipment Repairmen II in the Fire Department to determine if a majority of such employees, who 

performed sheet metal work more than 50 percent of 

their working time, desired to be represented by Local 

No. 24, Sheet Metal Union (AFL-CIO). There was only 

one such eligible employee in the bargaining unit and he 

voted “yes.” He resigned his employment November 17, 

1967, and since then all sheet metal work in the Fire 

Department has been contracted out.

The WERC ruled in favor of the city’s position 

involving fire personnel. The Fire Fighters’s Association 

had filed a petition on October 17,1967, requesting the 

WERC to conduct a representation election among all 

regular fire fighting employees, including captains, but 

excluding all other employees. The union predicated its 

position for the inclusion of captains in the unit on the 

basis that they did not perform any administrative duties 

in connection with their supervisory function, and, 

further, it requested the commission to change its policy 

with respect to excluding non-adminstrative supervisory 

employees from collective bargaining units.

The Commission decided that since there had been no 

change in the supervisory responsibilities of the captains 

since its original decision in 1963, there was no reason 

for considering them employees within the meaning of 

Section 111 .70, and therefore dismissed the petition.6

A case concerning police representation was still 

pending at the close of 1967.

Two representation cases were initiated in 1967. The 

case involving 23 attorneys in the city attorney’s office 

was pending in the Circuit Court at the close of the year. 

The WERC certification of the Association of Municipal 

Attorneys as bargaining agent was challenged by the city 

on the grounds that the attorneys were management 

employees and thus did not constitute an appropriate 

bargaining unit. The petition by District Council 48 for a 

new bargaining unit for technical and maintenance 

employees in the Department of City Development was 

still pending before the WERC at the end of 1967.

City service commission responds to collective bargaining challenge

The Milwaukee Board of City Service Commissioners, 

on December 1, created a new Civil Service Rule (Rule 

XVII), relating to employment relations policy and 

practice that reflected the city’s response to collective 

bargaining up to that time. The rule read as follows:

“Section 1. Section 111.70. The fact that the city of

Milwaukee has certain collective bargaining responsibilities under Section 111.70 of the Wisconsin Statutes

of 1965 is recognized as being in harmony with the State

Civil Service Law and Civil Service Rules.

“Section 2. In conforming with provisions of Section

111.70 of the Wisconsin Statutes of 1965, the personnel

department o f the City Service Commission shall assist

the City of Milwaukee negotiating team by providing

useful and effective technical data for good-faith negotiations and factfinding hearings by developing and retaining

a comprehensive file on wages, fringe benefits, and other

related data.

“The personnel department of the City Service Commission in accordance with the staff service concept, shall

make itself available in an advisory capacity for such

matters as mediation, collective bargaining, factfinding

and other practices involving sound employment

relations. Furthermore, upon completion of negotiations

and agreement, the personnel department of the City

Service Commission shall avail itself for the maintenance

of good-faith administration.”

As in previous years, the Classification Division 

conducted its annual wage and fringe benefits survey of 

27 major cities, and again contracted with the BLS to 

conduct a special survey of large Milwaukee employers 

in addition to its regular annual Milwaukee Area Wage 

Survey.

38

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
— F O O TN O T E S—

1 One of these, covering about 60 prevailing wage employees

outside the scope of their report, was the city’s second written

contract with the joint bargaining unit of District Council 48,

AFSCME (AFL-CIO) and Local 39 of the International Union of

Operating Engineers (AFL-CIO) covering prevailing wage equipment operators. This 3-year contract was signed on June 27,

1967, and provided for an increase of 25-cents-an-hour on June

1, 1967, 10 cents as of Dec. 1, 1967, 35 cents on June 1,1968,

and an additional 30 cents on June 1, 1969. A fifth week of

vacation after 30 years or more of service was also added.

2 A similar salary increase later was approved by the Common

Council for the supervisory lieutenant of police class.

3 A similar 1968 salary increase was approved by the

Common Council later for the supervisory fire captain class.

4 Formerly known as the Wisconsin Employment Relations

Board (WERB); it changed to the Wisconsin Employment Relation Commission (WERC) by the provisions of chapter 75 of the

1967 Laws of Wisconsin, which became effective on Aug. 1,

1967.

The WERC rejected the union’s complaint in February 1968.

The union decided not to appeal the WERC decision because the

contract would be terminated anyway by the end of the year.

sPAS had been employed by the City and Milwaukee County

in 1966 to make a joint study of all their management and

higher professional level positions. The county implemented the

recommended PAS management rates at the beginning of 1967;

the Common Council’s implementation came 1-year later for the

city’s management employees.

6 Local 215 had petitioned WERB in 1963 to conduct an

election in the Fire Department. The Board decided that

“because of the authority to direct firefighters, the responsibility

for commanding, the authority to discipline and recommend

same, the authority and responsibility to evaluate the men under

their command, the level of their supervision, the number of

men under their supervision, and because of their pay differential” the fire captain classification was supervisory and

therefore excluded from the persons eligible to vote. The WERB,

by applying the same criteria, concluded that fire lieutenants did

not perform such supervisory duties so as to exclude them from

the eligible employees.

The Board also had decided in 1963 that “the appropriate

bargaining unit must consist of all eligible employees in the

department with the exception of supervisors, confidential

employees, and craft employees or those classifications which

constitute a separate division and representation for them are

claimed by another organization.” It therefore decided that

certain designated civilian positions were to be included in the

over-all Fire Department bargaining unit.

39

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1968 Developments

The year 1968 concluded the 1966-68 contract 

period between the city and labor organizations 

representing most of its general employees. It also 

marked the final year of the 2-year agreement with the 

Professional Policemen’s Protective Association of Milwaukee. A 1-year memorandum of understanding with 

the Milwaukee Fire Fighters’ Association also expired on 

December 31.

Except for fire and police personnel, salaries of most 

general employees were adjusted 3 percent or 10-centsan-hour, whichever was greater, effective in the first 

1968 pay period. Salary increases for management and 

professional positions in the top ten pay ranges also 

included special adjustments (averaging about 

percent) as recommended in the PAS study. Fire 

personnel ranks from firefighters through fire captain 

received a flat increase of $668.70 a year.1 Fire personnel above the captain rank received a 3 percent increase 

plus the special adjustments applicable to the top ten 

pay ranges of the general salary schedule.

Police ranks below captain did not receive a salary 

adjustment in 1968. Police personnel above the captain 

rank received a 3 percent increase plus the special adjustments applicable to the top ten pay ranges of the general 

salary schedule.

No major changes in fringe benefits were due in 1968 

for either general employees or for fire and police service 

personnel.

' The salary ordinance establishing salary rates for

1968 reversed and renumbered the pay range numbering 

system previously used from 1961 through 1967 so that 

the lowest pay range number now included the lowest 

salary rates and the highest pay range number now 

included the highest salary rates. (See tables 30-32.) This 

was done to facilitate electronic data processing of 

payrolls and to provide an integrated pay plan in which 

overlapping pay ranges were matched throughout the 

general pay plan to conform to the PAS plan for 

management and professional classes of positions.

1969 negotiations begin with 17 unions

In 1968, the city entered into negotiations with 17 

labor organizations that had existing contracts or 

memorandums of understanding which were due to 

expire on December 31, 1968. By the end of the year, 

2-year tentative agreements had been reached with four

labor organizations representing personnel of the Fire 

and Police Departments.

Early agreement reached with police association

Provisions of the tentative agreement with the Professional Policemen’s Protective Association included a 

$500 annual salary increase in 1969 for ranks below 

captain of police, with additional second year salary 

increases of $250 effectiye with the first pay period of 

1970, plus $270 additional effective pay period 14, 

1970, for ranks below lieutenant of police. Agreement 

also was reached on liberalization of pension, health, and 

insurance provisions, on an educational program, and on 

other miscellaneous fringe benefit changes for police 

service personnel. It was agreed that civilian employees 

in the bargaining unit would be granted the same wage 

increases and fringe benefits as later would be granted 

other general city employees. The Police Association 

originally had requested annual salaries of $9,520 to 

$11,020 for patrolmen compared with the 1968 salary 

range of $7,200 to $8,700 and an equalization of pay 

differences between police ranks up through lieutenant. 

Other demands had included 4 weeks of vacation after 

15 years of service and 5 weeks after 20 years; time and 

one-half for overtime worked after 8 hours daily and 40 

hours weekly by all employees with police powers; shift 

differentials of 12 cents and 15 cents for police personnel assigned to early and late shift work; and improved 

pension, health, and insurance benefits.

Local 215 agreement sets pattern for other fire unions

The 2-year tentative agreement with the Milwaukee 

Fire Fighters’ Association provided a $400 increase in 

the annual salary rate for 1969, and an additional $250 

increase effective pay period 1, 1970, and a further 

increase of $250 effective pay period 14, 1970, for all 

ranks below fire captain except fire prevention officer.2 

Major fringe benefit changes were pension, health, and 

life insurance provisions; special duty pay; standby 

compensation; a reduction in the average workweek 

hours by granting two additional days off; permission to 

take outside employment under strict controls; and 

other related benefits. All civilian employees of the Fire 

Department represented by the Fire Fighters’ Association were to receive the same wage and fringe benefit

4 0

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
increases accorded general city employees. Initial 1969 

demands by the Fire Fighters’ Association had included 

a maximum base salary of $10,200, with comparable 

pay increases for all members in the bargaining unit; a 

40-hour workweek with time and one-half cash payment 

for overtime after 40 hours; one additional workday off 

for each successive 5 years of service after 5, 10,15, 20, 

and 25 years of service; the same holidays as other city 

employees or 3 additional workdays off in lieu thereof; 

time and one-half for holidays worked; payment by the 

city of premiums for major medical insurance; improved 

pension benefits; increased clothing allowances; an 

educational program; and other miscellaneous items.

Tentative agreements were reached with two other 

unions representing Fire Department personnel; Local 

1037, Uniformed Pilots and Marine Engineers Association, and Local 494, International Brotherhood of 

Electrical Workers, representing fire alarm dispatchers. 

Generally these reflected the wage and fringe benefits 

granted under the agreement with the Milwaukee Fire 

Fighters’ Association. The local 494 agreement also 

provided for a reallocation of fire alarm dispatchers from 

pay range 17 of the general salary schedule to pay range 

72 of the fire service salary schedule.

Negotiations with general city employee unions move

slowly

Wage talks between the city and 13 other unions that 

represented most of the city’s general employees had 

resulted in very little progress before November 11. 

Although numerous negotiating sessions had been held 

over the previous 7 months, negotiations were stalled in 

spite of a negotiating timetable that called for fact finding if a settlement was not reached by August 1,1968.3

District Council 48’s original demands for a 1969 

contract, submitted on February 1, included a 90 cent 

an hour pay raise and a quarterly cost-of-living adjustment of one cent for each four-tenths (0.4) of a point 

increase in the BLS Consumer Price Index for Milwaukee. Further major proposals called for (1) 15 cents 

second shift pay and a 20 cents third shift pay; (2) a 

change in the vacation schedule to provide for 3 weeks 

after 2 years of service; (3) city payment of $15 a month 

per employee into a union operated health and welfare 

fund for dental and optical service; (4) a minimum of 

$10,000 of life insurance for each employee, with the 

full premium to be paid by the city; (5) full payment by 

the city of the employee’s annuity contribution; (6) full 

retirement at age 55 with 30 years of service; (7) double 

pay (cash or compensatory time off, optional with 

employee) for all work performed on Saturdays, 

Sundays, and holidays; (8) a change in the pay plan to

provide for any ranges of two steps instead of five, the 

first being a 60 day probationary period and the second 

step the top step; (9) unlimited accumulation of sick 

leave at full pay; (10) a long list of job reallocations;

(11) removal of the no-strike, no-lockout clause; and

(12) negotiation of a strong “no-subcontracting” clause. 

The union also proposed eliminating the five off-days 

granted only those general employees on the payroll on 

January 1, 1963, and substituting five fully paid 

“personal” days off for all general employees instead.

In 1969 major wage and fringe demands submitted by 

the other unions representing general city employees 

also included requests for general salary increases, longer 

vacations, improved overtime pay practices, increases in 

late shift and weekend differential premiums, city paid 

m ajor medical insurance, $10,000 noncontributory 

group life insurance, added holidays with more premium 

pay for holiday work, expanded hospital and medical 

insurance coverage and benefits, and substantial 

improvements in the pension program.

City makes counter proposal to initial union demands

The city’s response to the union’s demands included 

proposals that no pay increases be granted for 1969, and 

that no changes be made in vacations or the city’s 

contributions to employees’ life and health insurance 

programs. The city also proposed doubling the monetary 

strike penalty from $20 to $40 a day for individual employees and $500 to $1,000 a day for unions. In addition, the city demanded unlimited rights in subcontracting city operations. The city also proposed (1) 

replacing flat rate payments for employees who used 

personal cars on city business with payments based on 

actual mileage; (2) elimination of December 31, as a paid 

holiday; (3) establishment of a 2 percent service charge 

for the city’s deducting union dues from employees’ pay 

checks; (4) elimination of all paid lunch periods, except 

for employees who worked on a three-shift operation; 

and (5) that weekend differential premiums be paid only 

if an employee worked an 8-hour shift during the 

weekend.

City establishes bargaining procedure covering pension

requests

In preparation for bargaining on 1969 demands, the 

Common Council, in a resolution adopted on March 7, 

established a formal procedure for processing pension 

requests. The resolution directed (1) the city’s labor 

negotiator to refer requests on pension matters to the 

appropriate city pension board;4 (2 ) that a staff member

41

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of the appropriate pension board attend those negotiating sessions at which the union explained its pension 

requests; and (3) that the appropriate board supply the 

labor negotiator prior to negotiations a report of the 

cost, method of funding, and legality of the requested 

changes, and similar information for any subsequent 

alternate bargaining proposals. The resolution further, 

required that before any agreement was reached affecting pensions, the chief labor negotiator would have to 

confer with the appropriate pension board covering any 

intended changes before they were presented in his 

negotiations. Furthermore, the pension boards could 

make recommended pension changes for the consideration of the Finance Committee and the Common 

Council and for such disposition as the committee and 

the council might deem appropriate; pension negotiations by the labor negotiator would have to reflect 

pension changes approved by the Common Council.

Negotiations with general employee unions show little

progress

On July 9, the city’s labor negotiator, following a 

long evening bargaining session with District Council 48 

on July 8, reported that some progress was being made 

in negotiations with the unions on noncontroversial 

items but that there had been few advances made on 

economic issues. In another bargaining session on July 8, 

the city made its first known wage offer, a b^-cents-anhour increase for about 350 garbage collection laborers 

represented by Local 61 of the Public Employees Union. 

The president of Local 61, which was demanding a 1969 

pay hike from the current maximum of $6,600 a year to 

$9,800, said the city’s offer was unacceptable.

Representatives of District Council 48 and the city’s 

negotiating team agreed to meet again sometime in 

September after making no further progress toward 

reaching an agreement in a session on August 27. The 

parties were still far apart on the key wage issue. The 

union had rejected the city’s offer to raise salaries 

41/4-cents-an-hour in 1969 and an additional 8% cents in

1970. The union’s director contended that the city 

would not now be facing a major wage problem if it had 

agreed in the fall of 1967 to the union’s request to 

reopen the matter of 1968 wage provisions under the 

3-year contract. He said that an unpredictable increase in 

the cost-of-living had proven the need for reopening the 

contract at that time.

Following an all day bargaining session on September 

10, the Director of District Council 48 stated that 

negotiators were nowhere near agreement. The union 

not only rejected the city’s demand to double strike 

penalties but suggested deletion of the penalty entirely.

The union’s director said he would agree to a clause— 

without penalties—that prohibited both strikes by his 

union and lockouts by the city.

City's chief negotiator reports slowdown in negotiations

On October 10, the city’s chief negotiator, in 

reporting on the progress on negotiations to a closed 

executive session of the Common Council, told the 

aldermen that negotiations were nearing a stalemate. He 

said that neither the city nor the unions had budged 

from their positions in recent sessions. He added that it 

was possible that factfinding would be required to settle 

the dispute. Finally on November 11, the city’s labor 

negotiator reported that he had asked for mediation 

assistance from the WERC after the earlier wage talks 

had not produced settlements. The Finance Committee 

had scheduled a hearing for November 15, on the 

unions’ wage settlements, but it was expected that there 

would not be much to hear unless negotiations took an 

unexpected turn at the last minute. The city’s negotiator 

also was expected to come up with an estimate of the 

cost of all labor contracts before Saturday, November 

16, when the Common Council was scheduled to have a 

1969 budget hearing. The budget vote by the Common 

Council was set for Monday, November 18. It would be 

necessary for the Council to include an amount of 

money for wage increases, even though negotiations 

were not completed.

Union rivalries and excessive fragmentation complicate

negotiations

With virtually no progress after months of negotiations, the city’s negotiator remarked that bargaining 

with 18 separate unions made negotiations extremely 

difficult. The big problem was the excessive fragmentation of city employees into many unions and jurisdictions which was permitted under Section 111.70and subsequent rulings by WERC. The law specified that craft 

employees must have separate units from non-craft 

employee groups, and “craft’* was interpreted to mean 

everything from plumbers to attorneys, nurses, doctors, 

and dentists.

Negotiations were further complicated by political 

rivalaries between District Council 48, the Teamsters, 

and the Garbage Laborers Union. The supremacy of 

District Council 48 was threatened for the first time by 

the two unions that represented truckdrivers and garbage 

collectors. At one time members of both unions had 

belonged to District Council 48. The WERC had authorized representation elections, and the employees had

42

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
voted to reject District Council 48 as their representative. This led to a competitive situation, with each of the 

three unions trying to outdo the others. Until 1968, 

District Council 48 had set the pattern for most of the 

other general employee union contracts with only minor 

variations. In 1968, the Teamsters and the Garbage 

Laborers had special demands of their own.

Improved city offer designed to break logjam

On November 15, following last minute negotiating 

sessions on November 13 and 14 in which state 

mediators participated but did not act as mediators, the 

city proposed a general salary increase of 4 percent for 

1969 and 4 percent for 1970 for all general employees. 

The offer was made to District Council 48 by the city’s 

negotiator, who said the city could offer no more without exceeding its mill tax limit. The city also offered to 

pay most of the cost of employees’ annuity contributions and to establish a cost-of-living clause in 1970.

District Council 48 rejects new city offer

The city’s wage offer was rejected immediately by the 

Director of District Council 48 who said the city’s 

proposal was “an indecent offer” and announced that 

the union’s members would meet on Sunday morning, 

November 17, to decide what to do next. He added that 

the union’s negotiating committee would recommend 

rejection of the city’s offer. The city’s contract offer fell 

far short of Council 48’s demands. Although a precise 

comparison was difficult, the union’s director said that 

the city’s offer was at least 30-cents-an-hour short of the 

union’s demand. The union’s latest demand called for 

wage and benefit increases totaling at least 56^-centsan-hour in 1969 and another 26 cents in 1970. The 

union also had asked for a cost-of-living formula in 1969 

and the reallocation of a large number of jobs to higher 

pay ranges. The city’s offer totaled 52 cents to 56-centsan-hour over the 2 years, depending on the exact cost of 

the pension fund financing. The city’s labor negotiator 

estimated that the proposed 4 percent increase would 

result in an hourly wage increase of 19 cents in 1969 and 

20 cents in 1970, plus an additional 5 to 6-cents-an-hour 

in the pension plan. Medical insurance improvements 

were estimated at an additional 3H-cents-an-hour.

The city’s offer was similar to the offer District 

Council 48 had agreed to in its recent settlement with 

Milwaukee County, but the union insisted that city 

employees should get more to catch up with county 

workers and with wages in private industry. The union 

contended that the increase in the cost-of-living had

wiped out the 3 percent (10 cents an hour minimum) 

yearly increases that city employees got under 

their 1966-68 contract. County employees had received 

cost-of-living raises in addition to annual increases under 

their former contract and city employees had not.

The Common Council’s Finance Committee, on the 

same day, approved the 4 percent wage hike for 1969 

and recommended increasing the proposed 1969 city 

budget to cover the pay increase, plus the city’s 

increased contribution to the pension fund and other 

improved fringe benefits.

District Council 48 membership authorizes strike action

Members of locals affiliated with District Council 48, 

on November 17, rejected the city’s latest contract 

proposal and authorized a strike by the 4,000 employees 

in the bargaining unit. By a vote of 1,460 to 30, they 

gave their local presidents and bargaining team power to 

schedule the strike “at their discretion” if the deadlock 

continued. The Council’s director said the union was no 

longer interested in a 2-year contract. He added that the 

union’s “final minimum demand” was a 1-year agreement with 58-cents-an-hour in wage raises and benefit 

improvements. The demand included a 40-cents-an-hour 

general wage increase, 16.6-cents-an-hour for changes 

in the pension plan, a wage escalator clause, and other 

improvements. No move was made by the union or city 

to resume negotiations.

City's request for factfinding rejected by W ERC

On November 30, the city’s negotiator said that he 

had requested the WERC to appoint a fact finder to help 

settle the apparent deadlocks in bargaining with District 

Council 48 and with Local 61 of the Public Employee 

U nion w hich represented garbage collectors. The 

director of District Council 48, on learning of the city’s 

decision, said he was against factfinding without further 

negotiations and said he has asked for negotiations to 

resume on December 5.

The WERC on December 3, decided to delay appointment of a factfinder pending further negotiations. The 

WERC chairman said that the two unions charged that 

the city had violated its contract by requesting factfinding before going through the necessary steps at the 

bargaining table. The director of District Council 48, in 

commenting on the commission’s decision, said that the 

union’s contract called for factfinding following mediation, and that his union did not intend to go through 

mediation. Local 61’s president said the union would 

consider its contract broken if factfinding was ordered in 

its wage negotiations for 1969, and that under no circumstances would the union participate in factfinding. The

43

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
union’s president said the contract required that factfinding begin on August 1 and that the fact finder’s 

recommendations be issued by October 15. The city 

requested factfinding contrary to the provisions of the 

contract, he added.

W ERC gives negotiations a needed push

City officials and representatives of District Council 

48, in a negotiating session on December 5, made no 

progress after arguing over side issues for two hours. 

Following this session a WERC member met separately 

with the two sides as part of an “informal investigation” 

to determine if an impasse in negotiations existed. A 

joint meeting with the WERC member was set for the 

following morning.

At the joint meeting of city and union officials with a 

Commissioner of the WERC on December 6, District 

Council 48 changed its contract demands and city officials requested time to study the new proposal. The 

WERC Commissioner, who had come to Milwaukee the 

day before to determine whether the city and union had 

reached an impasse and whether a fact finder should be 

appointed, said that he would meet with the city and 

with the union again on December 11.

Following the meeting on December 11, the WERC 

Commissioner reported that the city had improved its 

contract offer to District Council 48 in response to 

changes the union made in its demands at the December 

6 meeting. He said money was still the key issue and 

added that the city and union were willing to solve the 

other issues. The WERC Commissioner was serving as a 

go-between in the negotiations, but not acting as a 

mediator in the strict sense of taking charge of negotiations, making suggestions to the parties, and deciding 

when they should meet separately with him and when 

with each other.

Negotiations with District Council 48 falter again

Negotiators for the city and District Council 48 

suddenly broke off wage talks on December 13. The 

WERC commissioner, who had been sitting in on negotiations, said that he believed that wage negotiations were 

hopelessly deadlocked. He added that he would tell the 

WERC that factfinding was necessary to resolve the 

impasse which threatened to precipitate a strike. In telegrams sent to the Mayor, the President of the Common 

Council, and the Finance Committee Chairman, later on 

the same day, the director of District Council 48 

demanded direct talks with top city officials. He charged 

that negotiations were not working out and said he 

wanted to meet with “responsible public officials.”

The union had presented a revised contract proposal 

on December 13 that called for a 40-cent-per-hour wage 

increase for 1969, 30 cents for 1970, and city payment 

of the employee’s annuity contribution of 5Vi percent of 

salary. The union asked the city to pick up 3 percent in 

1969 and 2 XA percent in 1970. The city offered 2Vi

percent in 1969 and 3 percent in 1970. The city’s wage 

proposal called for a 4 percent raise or 15-cents-an-hour, 

whichever was greater, the first year, and 4 percent or 12 

cents in 1970. The city also offered a less generous costof-living clause for 1970 than the union was seeking.

City again requests factfinding with two major general

unions

On December 17, the city negotiator in a telegram to 

the WERC chairman, asked the agency to take immediate steps to expedite the start of factfinding in disputes with District Council 48 and Local 61. The WERC 

had delayed action on his earlier request on November 

27, in the hope that negotiations would settle the disputes. On the same day, the Common Council president 

and Finance Committee chairman, in telegrams to the 

Director of District Council 48, turned down his proposal for direct negotiations. They agreed with the city 

negotiator’s request for factfinding.

The WERC on December 18, scheduled hearings on 

the city’s request for a factfinder. A hearing to determine whether factfinding proceedings should be started 

' in the dispute involving Local 61 was set for Monday 

morning, December 23. Another hearing was scheduled 

for the afternoon to deal with the city’s request as it 

concerned District Council 48. The Mayor, in a telegram 

to the Director of District Council 48 on December 20, 

urged him to join with the city’s labor negotiator in 

requesting factfinding. The Mayor said in his request 

that he would continue his policy of treating the advisory recommendations of the factfinder as binding on 

the city. The union’s director earlier had said that he 

would attend the hearing to express his objection to 

factfinding but that union officials would not appear at 

any hearings, if, and when a factfinder was appointed 

by the WERC. He refused to comment on the Mayor’s 

telegram until a meeting with his union’s local presidents 

on Monday night, December 23. According to the 

union’s position, factfinding should have been conducted long before the city on November 18 adopted its 

budget, which included funds for salary increases.

Teamsters Union initiates factfinding with city

On December 21, it was announced that Local 242 of 

the T eam sters U nion, representing about 400

4 4

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
truckdrivers in the Department of Public Works, would 

ask the WERC to appoint a factfinder in its wage 

dispute with the city. The Teamsters Union wanted its 

members to be paid “prevailing rates,” the same hourly 

rates as paid truckdrivers in the construction industry in 

Milwaukee. This was the practice that the city had 

followed for years in the setting of wage rates for construction craftsmen employed by the city, but the city 

had successfully rejected suggestions that it be extended 

to noncraft workers. Construction industry rates were 

much higher than the rates paid by the city. The city 

had offered the Teamsters a 4 percent wage increase for 

1969, 4 percent for 1970, payment of employee annuity 

contributions, and a cost-of-living formula for 1970—the 

same offer made to the other unions.

Local 61 and District Council 48 balk on factfinding

At the WERC hearing on the morning of December 

23 the president of Local 61 told the WERC that the 

union would not participate in factfinding, even if 

ordered to do so. He said the city had ignored the factfinders’ recommendations in previous disputes with his 

union in 1963 and 1966. An attorney for District 

Council 48 at a second WERC hearing in the afternoon, 

argued that the appointment of a factfinder in its 

dispute would be a violation of its labor agreement. 

Later that night officials of District Council 48 scheduled a strike against the city but refused to reveal the 

date pending a new effort to settle its dispute. Negotiators for the city and union agreed to meet again on 

Friday, December 27, with a WERC commissioner 

present in an attempt to break the deadlock before the 

union contract expired on December 31.

City and District Council 48 reach tentative agreement

After almost 24 hours of continuous negotiations the 

city and District Council 48 reached tentative agreement 

on a new 2-year contract on December 28. Although the 

settlement covered all the big issues, some items were set 

aside for further bargaining the following week. The 

union’s director said the bargaining committee would 

recommend that the members accept it. Details of the 

pact were not announced pending ratification by the 

union; and on Monday, December 30, the city’s Labor 

Negotiator told the Common Council that he would not

publicly divulge the terms until he had settled with all 

bargaining units.

No progress was made in a negotiation session on 

December 30, with Public Employees’ Union No. 61 and 

no further meetings were scheduled. On the following 

day the union’s president said the union was considering 

a strike.

1968 representation activities keep W ERC busy

During 1968 four bargaining unit representation 

elections were held under the auspices of the WERC. 

These resulted in the establishment of a bargaining unit 

in the operations section of the Bureau of Municipal 

Equipment represented by the Municipal Truckdrivers’ 

Local Union 242, affiliated with the International Union 

of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousmen, and Helpers of 

America;5 establishment of bargaining units in the 

Building and Grounds Division of the Police Department, and in the Technical and Maintenance Division of 

the Department of City Development, represented by 

District Council 48; and the establishment of a bargaining unit including the firemen at the Parklawn 

Housing Project in the Department of City Development 

represented by Local 317, International Union of 

Operating Engineers (AFL-CIO). In addition, the city 

granted recognition to District Council 48 as the representative of employees in the Real Estate Division and in 

the Planning and Programming Division of the Department of City Development.

Middle management classes receive selective adjustments

in 1968

In 1968, the city undertook a revision of the salary 

plan particularly in respect to middle level supervisory 

and professional classes excluded from bargaining units 

in order to solve recruitment and retention problems and 

to relate the salaries to higher level administrative and 

professional classes covered under the PAS salary 

adjustments reflected in the top ten pay ranges for 1968. 

Recommended salary increases for these classes later 

were incorporated in the 1969 general salary schedule.

The Classification Division, in 1968, conducted its 

annual survey of wages and fringe benefits in 27 major 

cities and contracted with the BLS to again make a 

special survey of wages and related practices in large 

Milwaukee firms at the same time that BLS conducted 

its regular annual Milwaukee area wage survey.

45

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
— F O O TN O T E S—

‘ Fire captains, although not in the bargaining unit represented by the Fire Fighters’ Association, received the same flat

increase in 1968 so as to maintain the same wage differential

between captains and fire lieutenants in terms of cash, although

not in terms of percentage.

2 The salary for fire prevention officer was frozen at

$9,217.28 a year during 1969, and during the first 13 pay

periods of 1970; thereafter the salary was to be the same as for

firefighter. The fire prevention officer rank was eventually

phased out. Fire captains, although not in the bargaining unit,

received the same flat increase for 1969.

3 See “New Timetable Suggested for Future Negotiations,”

p. 23.

4 Milwaukee has three retirement benefit systems with

separate retirement boards. The Fireman’s Annuity and Benefit

System and the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit System were

established by acts of the legislature in the early 1920’s and all

employees who were in the regular service on that date and those

who entered prior to July 29, 1947, were eligible for membership in the fund. Both systems were “closed” to new entrants on

that date and all persons employed by either the Fire Department or the Police Department on or after July 29, 1947, have

been required to be members of the general City Employees’

Retirement System, although with somewhat different provisions than those stipulated for regular city employees. The

general City Employees’ Retirement System was established Jan.

1,1938. (See table 24 for 1970 provisions.)

5 The more than 400 truckdrivers, equipment operators, and

other allied workers in the city’s Bureau of Municipal Equipment

in this new bargaining unit had formerly been represented by

Local 33 of District Council 48.

District Council 48 had been certified by the WERB in 1963

to bargain for more than 1,500 employees in the City Department of Public Works-including these more than 400 employees-when it defeated Teamsters’ Local 200 in a representation

election.

4 6

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1969 Developments

Negotiations that had begun in April 1968, were still 

in progress at the beginning of 1969 with 12 of 17 labor 

organizations whose contracts had expired on December 

31,1968.

Garbage collectors union stages strike

On the morning of January 3,360 garbage collection 

laborers, represented by Public Employees’ Union No. 

61, went on strike.1 The workers left their jobs after 

contract talks broke off following an all-night bargaining 

session. The union was demanding a 79 cent-per-hour 

wage increase in a 2-year contract plus a cost-of- living 

escalator clause and city financing of pensions. The 

city’s last offer included a 39 cent-per-hour wage 

increase, pension changes, and a cost-of-living clause 

which was unacceptable to the union. A WERC 

commissioner who had been participating in the negotiations scheduled a meeting for January 6, in an effort to 

settle the strike.

District Council 48 members ratify

agreement with city

Meanwhile, the contract settlement with District 

Council 48, which was reached on December 28, 1968, 

was ratified by the union in a membership meeting on 

January 5. First-year terms of this 2-year agreement 

provided for an increase of 25 cents an hour or 4 

percent, whichever was greater, effective pay period 2, 

1969 ; and for an additional increase of 10-cents-an-hour 

on July 6, 1969, to raise an employee’s minimum salary 

increase for the year to 35-cents-an-hour. Many workers 

also received additional increases as the result of negotiated reallocations. Changes in fringe benefits for 1969 

included 3-weeks of vacation after eight rather than 10 

years of service; an increase of 2-cents-an-hour in shift 

differential premiums; full payment by the city of up to 

$7,000 of life insurance coverage for the employee; 

implementation of a uniform 5.5 percent pension 

deduction rate for general city employees, with the city 

paying 3 percent of the employee’s annuity contribution; an additional “off day” for all employees; and 

full payment by the city of tuition reimbursement up to 

a maximum of $150 a year for each employee. 

Maximum pension benefits were boosted from a limit of 

70 percent to 75 percent of the final average annual 

salary the employee had received in his three highest

earning years, with a provision that in 1970 the 

maximum would go to 80 percent. The pension formula 

was simplified and improved to provide benefits equivalent to 1.9 percent of final average salary multiplied by 

years of service effective the first 1969 pay period. The 

agreement also provided that in 1970 the city would pay 

the remaining 2.5 percent of the 5.5 percent of the employee’s annuity contribution.

O ther second-year provisions included a 20 

cent-per-hour increase in wages for 1970, plus a cost-ofliving adjustment; full payment by the city of major 

medical insurance and of up to $8,000 of life insurance 

coverage; and an additional 2 cent-per-hour increase in 

shift differential premiums.

The parties also agreed to a new merit promotional 

program which provided additional salary increments 

above the maximum rate for second, third, and fourth 

level clerical classifications in pay ranges 7, 10, and 12. 

Personnel would become eligible after having completed 

a specified number of years at the maximum rate at each 

range and if they had successfully completed job-related 

course work as defined or determined in accordance 

with the terms of the agreement.

The agreement also contained an unusual provision to 

keep a rival union from getting ahead of District Council 

48. City laborers (regular) in the Bureau of Street Sanitation were equated in salary with garbage collection 

laborers (truck loader-conbustible) and their job title 

was changed to “sanitation laborer.” Provision also was 

made that if garbage collection laborers (who were then 

on strike) received a wage increase greater than District 

Council 48 received, Department of Public Works 

laborers in pay ranges 9 and 10 would receive an additional increase equal to the difference between Council 

48’s general increase and the increase received by 

garbage collection laborers.

Agreement with garbage collectors union ends strike

The strike by Public Employees’ Union No. 61 ended 

late on January 9, when the garbage collection laborers 

ratified a new 2-year contract that was agreed to earlier 

in the day. The settlement came after several intensive 

negotiating sessions in which a WERC commissioner 

acted as mediator. The new contract provided hourly 

pay raises in 1969 and 1970 identical to the pay 

increases provided in District Council 48’s contract, 

which had been ratified on January 5. Fringe benefit

47

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
provisions also were the same. The city reserved the right 

to consolidate garbage and trash collection at some 

future date.

Most other unions accept District Council 48 formula

Two-year agreements with most other bargaining 

units covering general city employees were concluded 

subsequently; their provisions were generally in accord 

with the District Council 48 contract. Other general 

employees outside the bargaining units received similar 

salary increases and improved fringe benefits by action 

of the Common Council. Settlements with three bargaining units, however, were not concluded until late in 

1969 after lengthy factfinding proceedings. The three 

unions involved were Technicians, Engineers, and Architects of Milwaukee (TEAM); Local 195, International 

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (AFL-CIO) which 

represented bridgetenders; and Municipal Truckdrivers 

Local Union 242, affiliated with the International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehouseman, 

and Helpers of America.

Three late settlements follow factfinding proceedings

The latest and most significant of these three settlements occurred in December with TEAM. In addition to 

including similar fringe benefits granted to other general 

city employees for 1969 and 1970, except for a cost-ofliving adjustment, this 3-year contract provided for a 

separate pay plan with a 10 percent salary increase retroactive to pay period 2, 1969, and a 6 percent salary 

increase in 1970 for engineers and architects; plus merit

steps based on service and education for the engineering 

technicians represented by TEAM. The city had offered 

4 percent each year. Provision was made for reopening 

negotiations in 1970 on the subject of wages to be paid 

in 1971, changes in the general pension program to be 

extended to create uniformity with any changes for 

general city employees, and other items that might be 

mutually agreed on. This was the first time that such a 

reopener clause had been included in one of the city’s 

contracts or memorandums of understanding with a 

labor union. Local 195’s 2-year contract covering bridge 

operators (formerly bridgetenders) and boat operators 

called for a one pay range reallocation in addition to the 

same 1969 and 1970 pay increases as agreed to by 

District Council 48. The factfinder in the Teamsters’ 

contract dispute recommended that the union’s truckdrivers and special equipment operators get raises 

identical to those granted to most other general city 

employees for 1969 and 1970. Teamsters’ Local 242, 

representing about 450 employees, had demanded that

they get “prevailing rates,” the rates paid truckdrivers in 

the building construction industry. The factfinder 

concluded that the union had failed to justify its 

demands for prevailing rates, which were higher than 

city rates. The city had contended that it was misleading 

to compare city wages with those in the construction 

industry, because the city’s fringe benefits were more 

generous.

W ERC continues active role in representation cases

The city was involved in five representation cases 

during 1969. A bargaining unit represented by District 

Council 48 was established in the Department of Central 

Electronic Data Services. A significant representation 

case initiated in 1967 was settled in July 1969, when the 

Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed WERC and Circuit 

Court decisions to create a bargaining unit of the city’s 

attorneys to be represented by the Association of 

Municipal Attorneys of Milwaukee. The Association of 

Municipal Attorneys, representing the city’s 23 assistant 

attorneys, had petitioned WERC for factfinding in 

August, 1968, when the city refused to bargain with the 

Association on a 1968 request for a $4,000 annual salary 

increase.

City Attorney rules on legality of negotiations in private

The question of whether the city could legally 

conduct labor negotiations in private was raised officially in connection with 1969 wage negotiations with 

the Attorney’s Association. The chief negotiator, in a 

letter of November 4, asked the city attorney for an 

opinion after reporters on November 3, had refused to 

leave a bargaining session at which the city’s negotiating 

team decided that negotiations had to be conducted in 

private. The City Attorney, in his reply of November 5, 

said that the State Supreme Court, in a recent decision 

involving the Milwaukee School Board, had stated that 

“While preliminary steps of the bargaining process 

between a school board and a teachers’ majority representative union may be carried on in private, once the 

bargaining period is past, no final action can be taken 

until the recommended changes in salary schedules are 

made public and discussed in an open meeting, which is 

the final step in the negotiation process.” The City 

Attorney wrote, “If you do determine that you are 

initiating preliminary negotiating steps then on such 

basis in the light of the case’s declarations we conclude 

that such steps may be carried on in private.”

Two representative cases, one involving police 

supervisors and one a District Council 48 challenge of 

the Teamster bargaining unit, were dismissed following

48

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
hearings by the Wisconsin Relations Commission. The 

Professional Policemen’s Protective Association had filed 

a petition for factfinding on July 8, 1966, with the 

WERC alleging that the city had failed and refused to 

negotiate with the PPPA as the bargaining representative 

for all ranks of the Police Department below the Chief 

of Police. The decision of the WERC, issued on March 

12, 1969, held that members of the Police Department 

holding the rank of lieutenant and above were agents of 

the Police Department with respect to the relationship 

of the city and the nonsupervisory ranks of the Police 

Department. The commission further held that members 

of the Police Department holding the rank of lieutenant 

or above, or their representatives, did not have the right 

to proceed to factfinding. The commission noted that 

the supervisory duties of members of the Police Department, having the rank of lieutenant and above, had not, 

since the issuance of its March 19, 1965 decision, 

changed to such an extent that they were now nonsupervisory employees. The PPPA had raised the identical 

issue in a petition for representation filed on November

1, 1963, and the commission had then ruled that 

members of the Police Department having the rank of 

lieutenant and above were supervisory employees. The 

city’s position was that the ranks of sergeant and above 

should have been excluded as supervisory when the 

matter of PPPA certification first was presented to the 

WERC in 1963. District Council 48 once again unsuccessfully challenged the outcome of the August 9, 1968, 

representation election in which Teamsters’ Local 242 

had won the right to represent 398 truckdrivers and 

equipment operators formerly represented by Local 33 

of District Council 48. One additional case concerning 

employees of the Central Board of Purchases remained 

pending at the close of 1969.

The Classification Division, as in past years, conducted its annual wage and fringe benefit survey of 27 

major cities. In addition it again contracted with BLS for 

a special survey of wage: and fringe benefits in large 

Milwaukee firms to be made at the same time that BLS 

conducted its regular annual Area Wage Survey.

— F O O TN O TE S—

1 The strike halted the collection of garbage and household

trash that were burned at city incinerators. The strike did not

affect the collection of noncombustible materials that were

hauled to land fill sites. That work was done by members of

Local 33, District Council 48. The truckdrivers, who were

represented by the Teamsters Union, did not strike, but most of

them were idled when laborers struck.

49

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1970 Developments

The second year of the 2-year, 1970, union agreem ent period covered most city nonmanagement 

employees. Terms of the contracts or memorandums of 

und erstan d in g for most general nonmanagement 

employees provided for a 20-cents-an-hour increase in 

wages for 1970, plus an hourly cost-of-living adjustment 

of 10.7 cents ($8.59 biweekly) to reflect the change in 

the BLS Consumer Price Index for Milwaukee between 

November 1968 and November 1969. Major changes in 

fringe benefit terms included (1) full payment by the 

city of major medical insurance and of up to $8,000 of 

group life insurance coverage; (2) an increase from 13 

cents to 15-cents- an-hour for second shift work and 

from 18 cents to 20 cents for third shift work; (3) city 

payment of the employee’s pension annuity contribution; and (4) further liberalization of pension benefits. 

Management employees and nonmanagement employees 

in a few bargaining units did not receive the same wage 

increase and cost-of-living adjustment, although most 

received the same fringe benefit changes.

One exception to the general wage increase and costof-living adjustment applying to most nonmanagement 

employees had been an increase of 6 percent without a 

cost-of-living increase given to engineering personnel 

represented by the Technicians, Engineers, and Architects 

of Milwaukee (TEAM) bargaining unit. This was the 

result of a 3-year agreement beginning in 1969. In 

addition, employees represented by the Association of 

Scientific Personnel and by the Association of Physicians 

and Dentists bargaining units received an increase of 

20-cents-an-hour plus the cost-of-living increase, or 4 

percent plus the cost-of-living increase, whichever was 

greater.

Police and fire service personnel represented by the 

Policemen’s Association and Fire Fighters’ Association 

received a $250 increase in annual rates effective with 

the first pay period in 1970, in accordance with their 

1969-1970 contracts. In addition, nonsupervisory police 

officers received another $270 increase effective pay 

period 14, while nonsupervisory fire personnel received 

$250 more effective pay period 14. Civilian employees 

in these two bargaining units received the same wage and 

cost-of-living increases as granted nonmanagement 

general city employees.

New management pay plan approved

A merit review pay plan for approximately 865 

management employees was approved by the Common

Council on January 22. The plan, proposed by the city 

personnel director, eliminated the automatic pay raises 

that management employees had received annually in 

the past. This new plan extended to all management 

employees who were in 1969 pay ranges 13 and above. 

All management employees were granted a 5xh percent 

general salary increase, effective pay period 1,1970. All 

management positions were assigned to 31 eight-step pay 

ranges. (See table 34.) Annual anniversary advances 

through the sixth step required a favorable recommendation from the department or bureau head after 

appropriate formal merit review and evaluation of job 

performance. In addition to the SVi percent general 

increase, all management employees receiving a favorable 

merit review recommendation were also eligible for an 

additional one-step increase (approximately 4 # percent). 

Steps 7 and 8 of the plan, called special management 

review rates, and intended to be used for extraordinary 

performance, were not activated during 1970. In the 

early part of 1970, the attorneys, represented by the 

Association of Municipal Attorneys, were placed under 

the management pay plan.1

Unions submit 1971 wage and fringe benefit demands

During 1970, the city was involved in labor negotiations with 17 labor unions having contracts or 

memorandums of understanding that would expire on 

December 31.2 New wage and fringe demands for 1971 

that were submitted by the unions late in January forewarned of a long year of heated and difficult bargaining 

in the midst of what city officials described as a fiscal 

crisis of major proportions. By the end of 1970, contract 

terms remained unsettled with all bargaining units 

except two, which together represented fewer than 100 

workers. The first negotiated agreement occurred in 

April. This settlement was reached with the Association 

of Physicians and Dentists and provided that physician 

and dentist classes be placed under the management 

merit review pay plan beginning with pay period 9, 

1970, through December 31, 1973. Dental hygenists 

were granted an additional 10-cents-an-hour wage 

increase for the remainder of 1970.3 The agreement 

further provided that dental hygenists would receive 

general wage increases in 1971,1972, and 1973 equal to 

the general wage increases granted to other employees of 

comparable status as determined by the city.

In November, an agreement was reached with the 

joint bargaining unit of Local 139, International Union

50

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of Operating Engineers and District Council 48 representing about 70 prevailing wage equipment operators.4

District Council 48 lists extensive demands for 1971

The largest city union, District Council 48, had 

submitted demands for a 1971 contract that included a 

50-cent-an-hour pay increase, a semiannual instead of an 

annual cost-of-living adjustment, and a 35-hour week. 

Other major contract proposals were (1) a change in 

vacations to provide for 2 weeks after 1 year of service, 

three after 5 years, four after 10 years, and five after 20; 

(2) an additional 2 paid holidays to include a day off 

on January 15, to honor the memory of the Reverend 

Martin Luther King Jr., a day off to celebrate the 

employee’s anniversary of joining the union, and a full 

day off on Good Friday instead of only a half day; (3) a 

$15,000 noncontributory life insurance policy; (4) 

double-time pay for Saturday, Sunday, and holiday 

work, which was paid at the rate of time and one-half;

(5) and 4 hours of guaranteed pay, instead of two, for 

employees called in on their day off. Other demands 

included unlimited sick leave, improvements in hospital 

and medical insurance coverage, a $10 a member a 

month contribution to the union’s dental and drug 

prescription plan, liberalized pension benefits, terminal 

leave pay, a maximum of 1 year of full-paid injury pay 

for each duty-incurred injury, and a number of miscellaneous items.

Various demands submitted by other large unions

Wage demands of other large city unions included a 

request by the Policemen’s Association that the starting 

pay for patrolmen be increased $2,280 a year to a 

minimum rate of $10,500 in 1971 with an increase of 

$3,780 in the maximum rate, providing a new maximum 

rate of $13,500 after 3 years of service, and comparable 

increases for other jobs in the bargaining unit. The Fire 

Fighters’ Association had asked for pay equality with 

policemen’s salaries, a 40-hour workweek, a costof-living increase, and longevity pay of 3 percent for 

each 5 years of service up to a maximum of 12 percent 

after 20 years. Public Employees’ Local Union 61 

demanded an annual salary equal to or better than 

$11,800, a quarterly cost-of-living adjustment, and 3 

percent longevity pay for each 5 years of service. 

Teamsters’ Local 242 sought a pay raise of $l-an-hour 

and reallocation of truckdrivers from pay range 11, 

which paid a maximum of $7,308 a year, to pay range 

18 with a maximum yearly salary of $9,703. Like 

District Council 48, the other unions also had asked for 

im proved fringe benefits that included increased

vacation time, extra holidays, more pay for weekend 

work, improvements in health and life insurance coverage, extra retirement benefits, numerous reallocations, 

and a long list of miscellaneous items.

City hints at specific proposals for each union

Although bargaining was not scheduled to begin until 

April 15, the city’s negotiators on March 16, asked the 

unions to begin bargaining as soon as possible. Rather 

than submitting a list of city demands as required, the 

city’s chief negotiator and personnel director, in a letter 

to the respective unions, said the city was prepared to 

discuss general rates of pay; limitations on time off with 

pay; pension and insurance improvements; limitations on 

union activity relating to subjects covered in bargaining; 

and the duration, form, and content of the contract. The 

city, the letter said, had specific proposals which would 

be discussed with each union at the initial and subsequent negotiating sessions.

City's 1970 negotiations with District Council 48 start

slowly

Most 1969-70 union contracts and memorandums of 

understanding incorporated a bargaining timetable that 

was identical to that included in earlier agreements. This 

timetable called for mediation, if any, to begin by July 

15, if negotiations were not completed. Factfinding, if 

any, was to begin by August 1, with recommendations 

issued by October 15. In spite of the timetable, hard 

bargaining over 1971 economic demands did not get 

underway until late in October. On October 22, District 

Council 48’s bargaining team announced that it had 

broken off contract negotiations. The union’s executive 

director said that the city had proposed a 3-year contract with raises averaging about 5 percent the first year, 

4 to 4lA percent the second year, and a straight 4# 

percent the third. He added that the city had offered a 

cost-of-living adjustment in 1973 but had offered 

nothing to cover higher living costs in 1971. The city, he 

added, was “still hanging on to its first counteroffer, 

only slightly amended.” The union’s latest proposal was 

for a 2-year contract with a 35 cent-per-hour raise on 

January 1, 15 cents more on July 1, an additional 20 

cents on January 1, 1972, and 15 cents in July, 1972. 

The union also demanded cost-of-living adjustments in 

January and July of the second year. The union further 

charged that the city wanted to take away the vested 

pension rights of employees with less than 10 years of 

service, and not put any money into their annuity fund 

until they had 10 years of service. The city’s Labor 

Negotiator, on the other hand, contended that the city’s

51

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
pension offer would terminate the annuity account for 

new employees, but that the city would provide them 

with a fully paid pension system with vesting after 10 

years. He said that all employees who had put any 

money into the annuity portion of the retirement program would continue to have the right to withdraw it if 

they left their city jobs. He added, though, that since 

1968 the city had paid the total cost of the program so 

new employees would not have anything to withdraw. 

He also said that the city offered to increase pension 

benefits under the proposed new three-year contract.

1971 budget includes 5% million for anticipated wage

increases

The city’s negotiating team, in a letter of November 

5, to the Finance Committee, proposed that $5.5 million 

be appropriated in the 1971 budget for pay and fringe 

benefits resulting from new wage contracts. It was not 

known how much money would be needed because 

negotiations with the city’s unions were not completed. 

The city’s budget procedures however, required that the 

funds be included in the proposed budget to be adopted 

later in November. It was proposed that $4 million be 

placed in a special fund for wage increases and that $1.5 

million be put in the contingent fund to cover fringe 

benefits and some unforseeable costs. Subsequently, the 

Common Council, on November 20, adopted the 1971 

budget w hich included a contingency fund of 

$5,250,000, most of which went for anticipated wage 

raises and fringe benefit changes.

Late in November the city’s labor negotiator 

announced that contract negotiations between the city 

and District Council 48 would be resumed on December

8. It would be the first bargaining session since midOctober when the union’s negotiation team rejected the 

city’s wage offer and broke off talks. On December 2, 

members of District Council 48 voted unanimously to 

reject the city’s last offer and authorized their leaders to 

call a strike, if necessary, to win a satisfactory contract.

City petitions W ERC for representation election in new

Bureau of Sanitation

Two days later, on December 4, the city petitioned 

the WERC to hold an election as soon as possible to 

determine which union would represent the approximately 1,000 workers in the newly consolidated Bureau 

of Sanitation. The new bureau was set up to handle a 

new waste disposal system that called for a private 

scavenger firm to haul most of the city’s garbage and 

refuse to landfill sites outside the county beginning 

January 4. This new system would enable the city to

combine the separate refuse and garbage collections that 

were presently being handled by the city’s Garbage and 

Street Sanitation Bureaus. Workers in the new bureau 

coming from the two bureaus had formerly been represented by four unions: Public Employees’ Local Union 

No. 61 had represented garbage collection laborers; 

District Council 48 had represented street sanitation 

crews and noncombustible rubbish collectors; truckdrivers had been represented by Teamsters’ Local 242; 

and incinerator plant workers had been represented by 

Local 125-B of the Firemen and Oilers.

The city, in asking the WERC to hold the election, 

contended that there should be a single union for all the 

workers in the new bureau. It said the WERC should 

consider the matter an emergency because the contracts 

of the respective unions expired on December 31. The 

elimination of several hundred jobs under the new waste 

disposal system and the rivalry among the unions for the 

right of representing workers was affecting the progress 

of labor negotiations. The city’s labor negotiator and 

City Personnel Director said that they could not negotiate a new contract without knowing who would represent the workers. The WERC chairman replied that it 

would be very difficult, if not impossible, to hold the 

election before December 31.

A layoff plan proposed by the City Personnel 

Director in anticipation of the creation of the new 

Bureau of Sanitation, was rejected by the City Service 

Commission in response to objections by union leaders 

who contended that such matters were negotiable. City 

officials had estimated that the city’s new waste disposal 

system would result in laying off from 150 to 250 

workers. The proposed plan would provide general 

guidelines for dismissing the excess workers, but it did 

not go into detail or specify the number of employees to 

be dismissed. It suggested that seniority be the basis for 

determining who would be laid off and proposed that 

efforts be made to find jobs for workers in other 

departments.

Negotiations with District Council 48 break off

Negotiations that had resumed on December 8 

between the city and District Council 48 broke off again 

on December 22 when the union rejected a new city 

offer and set a strike deadline of January 11. The 

union’s director said that the city had only reiterated the 

position it had made earlier; that offer had already been 

rejected by the union membership on December 2. The 

city’s Labor Negotiator, however, said that the city had 

presented a revised and improved offer. The city’s offer, 

he added, included a pay increase of 5 lA percent for 

1971, a 4 percent raise for 1972, and 3 percent for the

52

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
third year, plus cost-of-living adjustments in 1972 and 

1973. The offer also included a substantial improvement 

in the pension program. Both city and union officials 

said that no further bargaining sessions were scheduled.

The WERC chairman announced on December 29, 

that a hearing on the city’s petition for a representation 

election for employees in the new Bureau of Sanitation 

was scheduled for January 6. He also announced that 

negotiations between the city and District Council 48 

would resume on January 5, at the request of the 

WERC, with the three members of the WERC participating in the talks.

Contracts extended by city and its employee unions

On December 30, the city negotiator said that all 

labor contracts expiring at midnight on December 31, 

would be extended either formally or informally. The 

agreement with the Fire Fighters’ Association was 

extended to January 19, after a meeting on December 

30. Another bargaining session was scheduled for 

January 14. A WERC member had been mediating talks 

between the city and the association. Earlier on 

December 15, the Fire Fighters’ Association had taken 

the first strike vote in its history; the results had been 

overwhelmingly in favor of a walkout if agreement on a 

new contract had not been reached by December 31.

PPPA membership authorizes strike vote

After a short meeting on December 29, negotiators 

for the city and the Policemen’s Association agreed to 

extend the Police Association’s contract to January 12, 

after the membership had voted overwhelmingly on 

December 28, to give their board of trustees, their 

negotiating team, the authority to call a strike if negotiations failed. It was the first strike vote by policemen 

in the city’s history. An association official emphasized 

that a vote authorizing the board to call a strike would 

not necessarily assure a walkout. He assured members 

that the trustees hoped to return to the bargaining table 

and obtain a new contract. If the trustees felt a strike 

was the only way out, he said, another membership 

meeting would be held. He said the vote would be used 

to convince the city labor negotiator, other city officials, 

and the police chief that the trustees wanted to bargain 

without the threat of disciplinary action by the Police 

Department for their activities at the bargaining table. 

Members of the union’s board of trustees had been 

disciplined earlier for such action, he alleged.

Shortly after the announcement that the contract 

with the Police Association had been extended, the 

Common Council unanimously passed a resolution

instructing the Police Chief not to take disciplinary 

action against the police bargaining team members for 

good faith negotiations on subjects of wages, hours, and 

conditions of employment in bargaining sessions with 

the city. The resolution also directed the chief to send 

an authorized representative to negotiating sessions.

The four unions involved in garbage collection and 

street sanitation work had been urged by the WERC to 

keep working, pending a hearing on the city’s request for 

an election to reduce the four unions to one to represent 

the workers in the new Bureau of Sanitation. Local 242 

of the Teamsters’ Union, one of the four unions, on 

December 14, had voted to authorize a strike if contract 

talks failed. Other city unions were expected to continue 

to work even if they had not formally extended their 

agreements.

1970 ends with little to show in metropolitan area

public employee negotiations

At the close of 1970, it was estimated that there were 

more than 25,000 public employees in the Milwaukee 

area working under terms of agreements that were expiring at midnight on December 31. Included were about

25,000 employees working for the city, the County 

School Board, the Milwaukee Sewerage Commission, and 

the Milwaukee Area Technical College (formerly the Milwaukee Vocational School). In addition, there were 

public employee contracts in many Milwaukee area 

suburbs that would also expire on New Year’s Eve.

Contract negotiations between the five taxing units 

and more than 30 unions had been underway for many 

months without a major new contract having been 

signed. Only two agreements, both with the city, had 

been reached and they covered less than 100 employees. 

The independent association representing 24 doctors, 

dentists, and dental hygenists early in 1970 had accepted 

coverage under the city’s management pay plan rather 

than negotiate pay rates. The joint bargaining unit of 

Local 139 of the Operating Engineers and District 

Council 48, representing 70 prevailing wage heavy equipment operators, also had reached an agreement with the 

city in November on a 2-year contract. But about 8,500 

other city employees represented by 15 unions still did 

not have new agreements.

Other major taxing units report tentative agreements

Tentative agreements, however, had been reached by 

the other taxing units covering some of their employees. 

The school board had reached tentative agreement on a 

new 2-year contract with the Milwaukee Teachers

53

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Education Association covering 5,400 teachers. The 

teachers were to vote on the pact by mail, with the results expected by January 18. Tentative agreements also 

had been reached with three other unions covering about 

1,700 school engineers, clerks, truckdrivers, and other 

employees. No agreements had been reached with substitute teachers, school aides, and accountants. The county 

had reached a tentative agreement on December 24, with 

negotiators for the county’s largest union, District 

Council 48 representing about 6,000 employees, but the 

union membership had voted to reject the agreement. No 

agreements had been reached with four other unions 

representing about 460 other county employees. The 

Technical College had reached tentative agreements with 

two unions (Local 212 of the American Federation of 

Teachers and District Council 48) representing all of the 

school’s 680 teaching and nonteaching employees. 

Ratification meetings were scheduled for early in January. No settlements had been reached by the Sewerage 

Commission and its three unions representing about 350 

employees. The commission had voted to extend the old 

contracts for 30 days.

Five major taxing unit negotiators confer regularly

Negotiators for the five taxing units had been meeting 

and coordinating their negotiations with District Council 

48, as they had done in previous years.

District Council 48 was certified to represent a large 

majority of the nonsupervisory employees of Milwaukee 

County on December 10, 1965. The first bargaining 

session took place on January 21, 1966 and a 2-year 

contract for 1967-68 was finally agreed to on February 

3, 1967. In subsequent representation elections, District 

Council 48 was certified to represent laborers and 

construction job equipment operators, social workers, 

and pharmacists on August 2, 1966; barbers on March 

19, 1968; court reporters on December 22, 1969; parttime hospital attendants and child psychiatric aides on 

August 6, 1970; and dentists on August 7, 1970. The 

union’s second county contract was for 1969 and 1970 

and covered approximately 6,000 employees.

The WERB on July 16,1963, certified District Council 

48 to represent municipal recreation custodial employees on the school board. On December 7, 1966, 

District Council 48 was certified to represent window 

cleaners; on June 21, 1967, store clerks, material 

handlers, and truckdrivers; on May 28, 1969, social work 

aides; on June 24, 1969, clerical and technical employees; and on February 17, 1970, repair and construction division employees. For the years 1964 through 

1968 the school board adopted resolutions that incorporated the terms of agreements reached with 

District Council 48. The first written contract was a 

2-year agreement for 1969 and 1970.

The first certification of District Council 48 as a 

bargaining representative for employees of the Milwaukee Area Technical College was made in November 

1968. The union currently represents their clerical, 

custodial, maintenance, and security guards. Before 

November 1968, the college recognized District Council 

48 and had consummated three 1-year contracts. The 

first was effective January 1, 1966. Before 1966, there 

were no contracts but agreements with the union were 

passed in the form of board resolutions. The various 

employee groups were recognized by the college at different times; however, by the time District Council 48 

was certified by WERC, practically all employees 

covered by the union had been recognized by the 

college.

District Council 48 was certified to represent all noncraft and nonsupervisory employees of the Sewerage 

Commission on April 2, 1965. A resolution was passed 

by the commission approving and adopting the terms of 

the first labor agreement on March 31,1966, which was 

a 1-year agreement effective January 1, 1966. Subsequently, agreements were each for 2-years (1967-68 

and 1969-70). There was much closer coordination than 

in the past. In March, the Common Council had approved a resolution of its Finance Committee aimed at 

strengthening the collective bargaining of the five major 

taxing units in Milwaukee . The proposal spelled out the 

importance of closer cooperation among the five governmental units to assure (1) development of uniform 

bargaining conditions in the preparation for negotiations 

and during negotiations, (2) an exchange of information 

between the units to effect economies in preparing for 

negotiations; and (3) a reduction of “whipsaw” bargaining by unions. The resolution asked negotiators for the 

five units to hold monthly meetings to exchange information. In the past, representatives of the units had 

held meetings to exchange information on bargaining, 

but the meetings were infrequent and often of little 

value. District Council 48’s director claimed that they 

saw the school board appeared to be making the same 

proposals and counterproposals as advanced by the city, 

and that they related to what the county had offered. 

He believed, however, that the five taxing units showed 

more mistrust and suspicion among themselves than 

unity of purpose. In 1969, he had suggested that they 

band together and bargain jointly with his union which 

represented about 13,500 employees of the city, county, 

school board, technical college, and Sewerage Commission.5

54

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Several representation elections held in 1970

During the course of the year, the city was involved 

in several representation cases. Natatoria employees in 

the Bureau of Bridges and Public Buildings voted to 

decertify their former representative, Local 17, Building 

Service Employees International Union. Twice during 

the year, District Council 48, sought to enlarge its 

representation in the Bureau of Municipal Equipment to 

cover truckdrivers. The first case was dismissed and the 

second case resulted in an election being held, which 

Teamsters Local 242 won. The city, after discussions 

with District Council 48, agreed, without a WERC election, to recognize the union as the representative of a 

number of positions in the Department of City Development, some of which were formerly considered by the 

city to be management. One additional case concerned

1 The Association of Municipal Attorneys was formed in

1965. In 1967, the WERC certified the association as bargaining

agent for assistant city attorneys. This action was challenged by

the city on the grounds that the attorneys were management

employees and thus did not constitute an appropriate bargaining

unit. In July 1969, the State Supreme Court upheld the association’s right to bargain.

2T echnicians, Engineers, and Architects of Milwaukee

(TEAM) had a 3-year contract that expired on Dec. 31, 1971.

This agreement included a 1970 reopening clause for negotiating

wages to be paid in 1971, changes in the general pension plan,

and other items mutually agreed to.

3 The 10-cents-an-hour wage increase was in addition to the

1970 wage increase called for in the association’s 2-year agreement that would have expired on December, 1970.

4 Prevailing wage employees are outside the scope of this

report. A significant aspect of this agreement, which was retroactive to June 1, was that for the first time a city trade union

the buyers in the Central Board of Purchases, who had 

asked initially that they be represented, and later had 

asked to represent the whole department. This resulted 

in an election being held on February 2, in which neither 

the Milwaukee Purchasing Department Employees’ Independent Union, District Council 48, nor the choice for 

no representation received a majority of the 27 ballots 

cast by the 30 eligible voters. Previously, in 1964, “a 

majority of employees” in purchasing had voted against 

union representation.

The Classification Division in 1970, as in previous 

years, conducted a survey of salaries, fringe benefits, and 

related pay practices of municipal employees in 28 

major cities. It also contracted with the BLS to survey 

additional jobs at the time BLS conducted its regular 

annual Milwaukee Area Wage Survey in the spring of 

1970.

agreed to a percentage reduction of offset of the prevailing wage

rates in return for full city fringe benefits. The 2-year contract

provided wages of 95 percent of prevailing wage in the construction industry for the first year (June, 1970-May, 1971) and of

92 percent of the prevailing wage in the construction industry

for the second year (June, 1971-May, 1972). Full city fringe

benefits, including holidays, were to be granted effective Jan. 3,

1971.

5 On June 20, 1969, the Executive Director of District

Council 48 and the national President of AFSCME, in a meeting

of officials of the five taxing units, had proposed unified labor

negotiations by the five units, with uniform wages and fringe

benefits. Other recommendations in the union’s proposed plan

to ease the money problems of the five local governments

included the establishment of a trust company by the five units

with employee pension funds as a major source of deposits and

investment capital, and incentives for the 30,000 employees of

the five bodies to use the county hospital.

55

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. General salary changes-general city employees, Milwaukee

Pay period and year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

Pay period 1, 1960

Pay period 1, 1961

Pay period 1, 1962

Pay period 1, 1963

Pay period 1, 1964

Pay period 1, 1965

Pay period 1, 1966

Pay period 1, 1967

Pay period 1, 1968

Pay period 2, 1969

Pay period 15, 1969

4 percent increase.

Increases varied by class. Averaged about 4

percent.

No general increase.

Advanced one salary step. Equivalent to approximately a 4% percent increase.

Adjustments ranged from $14 per month in

lowest pay range to $75 per month in highest

pay range.

3 percent increase. Adjustments ranged from

$8 per month in lowest pay range to $56 per

month in highest pay range.

$12.50 per month (7 cents per hour) or 3 percent,

vrtiichever was greater

10 cents per hour or 3 percent, whichever was

greater.

10 cents per hour or 3 percent, whichever was

greater.

10 cents per hour or 3 percent, whichever was

greater.

Special increases averaging about 6% percent in

addition to 3 percent increase granted to

other employees.

25 cents per hour or 4 percent, whichever was

greater.

10 percent.

10 cents per hour.

One (1) to 10 cents per hour depending on

whether the 4 percent general increase

granted January 5, 1969 was less than 35

cents but more than 25 cents per hour. No

increase where the 4 percent increase in

January amounted to 35 cents or more.

10 cents per hour or 4 percent, whichever was

greater.

All general employees.

All general employees.

Completely revised integrated pay plan adopted; salary increases selectively

allocated to classes; improvement of salary rates and pav differentials of

technical, professional, and administrative classes; salary increases varied

by class.

Readopted 1961 pay plan.

All general employees.

All general employees.

All general employees.

A fund of $330,000 was established to correct inequities during the year.

All general employees.

All general employees.

All general employees.

Professional and management classes in pay ranges 24 and above.

All general employees except those represented by Technicians, Engineers,

and Architects of Milwaukee (TEAM)

Employees represented by TEAM. Special pay ranges 17(a), 21(b) and 45

through 48 established for classes covered by TEAM.

All employees who received 25 cents an hour in January; employees in

pay ranges 3 through 27 affected except for employees represented by

independent Health Department unions noted below.

Employees who received more than 25 cents an hour in January. The result

was that employees in some or all steps in pay ranges 28 through 37

received less than a 10-cent-per-hour increase and employees in pay

ranges 38 through 44 received no increase except for employees represented by independent Health Department unions r - ted helox*.

Employees represented by the Association of Scientific Personnel and by

the Association of Physicians and lentists.

Special increases for Graduate Nurse I, Junior

Public Health Nurse, and Public Health Nurse

II in accordance x*ith agreement with Staff

Nurses' Council. Increase for all nurses in

bargaining unit averaged approximately 3 h

percent.

Special pay range 14(a) established covering Graduate Nurse I and Junior

Public Health Nurse formerly allocated to pay range 14. Special pay

range 18(a) established for Public Health Nurse II formerly allocated

to pay range 18. Public Health Nurse I retained in pay range 17 and

received same increase as other classes allocated to pay range 17.

57

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. General salary changes—general city employees, Milwaukee— Continued

Pay period and year Provisions Applications, exceptions., and related matters

Pay period 1, 1970 20 cents per hour plus $8.50 biweekly

(10.7 cents hourly) cost-of-living increase

based on change in BLS Consumer Price

Index for Milwaukee between November

1968 and November 1969.

Cost-of-living adjustment granted at rate

of $1.0349 biweekly for each 1.0 point

change in the BLS Consumer Price Index

for Milwaukee (1957-59-100) between

November, 1968, and November, 1969,

effective pay period 1, 1970 provided

there was at least a 0.4 point change

in the All-Items Index.

Most general employees except where otherwise noted.

Engineering technicians I-III and drafting personnel I-III received salary

increases that were intended to maintain former relationships with

Engineering technicians IV and V represented by the Technicians, Engineers

and Architects of Milwaukee bargaining unit. Salary rates for such classes

were provided in special pay ranges 9(a), 13(a), 17(a) and 21(b).

Cost-of-living adjustment did not apply to latter pay ranges.

20 cents per hour plus $8,59 biweekly

(10.7 cents hourly) cost-of-living

increases or 4 percent plus cost-of-living

increase, whichever was greater.

Employees represented by the Association of Scientific Personnel and by the

Association of Physicians and Dentists. Salary rates included in special

pay ranges 21(a), 25(a), 27(a), 28(a), 29(a), 31(a), and 34(a) to provide

for 4 percent increases that exceeded 20 cents an hour.

6 percent increase without any cost-of-living

increase.

Engineering personnel represented by Technicians, Engineers, and Architects

of Milwaukee (TEAM) bargaining unit. New salary rates provided in special

pay ranges 45 through 48 for classes covered by TEAM.

5% percent general increase. In addition,

employees receiving a favorable merit

review recommendation were advanced one

additional step in the normal pay range.

Management personnel in new Management Merit Review Pay Plan for 1970 covering

former management classes in 1969 pay ranges 13 and above. Merit review

increase was part of general 1970 increase for management employees and

separate from any within-range increase which an employee might be eligible

for on his anniversary date.

Notes:

1960-1970

1960-1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

Pay

Period 1

1969

Pay

Period 15

1970

Milwaukee usually has 26 biweekly pay periods each year; pay period 1 usually starts several days before January 1 of the new year.

All civilian employees in Fire and Police Departments received same general increases as general employees. Civilian classes

included in pay plans for general employees.

All fire and police service personnel received same general increases as general employees. See General Salary Changes-Police

and Fire Service, 1960-70. (See table 2.) Fire and police service classes were included in the single pay plan that covered nearly

all City employees.

All fire personnel received same general salary increases as general employees. New separate pay plan was established for

all police service personnel. See General Salary Changes-Police and Fire Service Personnel, 1960-70. (See table 2.)

All fire and police service personnel received same general salary increases as general employees. See General Salary Changes-Police

and Fire Service Personnel, 1960-70. (See table 2.)

Fire service personnel in ranks above Fire Captain received same general salary increases as general employees. New separate pay

plan was established for fire service personnel covering ranks of Firefighters through Fire Captain. Police service personnel in

ranks above Lieutenant of Police received same general salary increases as general employees. See General Salary Changes-Police

and Fire Service Personnel, 1960-70. (See table 2.)

Fire service personnel in ranks above Fire Captain received same general salary increases as general employees. Police service

personnel in ranks above Lieutenant of Police received same general increases as general employees. See General Salary

Changes-Police and Fire Service Personnel, 1960-70. (See table 2.)

Fire service personnel in ranks above Fire Captain received same general salary increases as general employees. Police service

personnel in ranks above Lieutenant of Police received same general salary increases as general employees. See General Salary

Changes-Police and Fire Service Personnel, 1960-70. (See table 2.)

Fire service personnel in ranks above Fire Captain received same general salary increases as general employees. Police service

personnel in ranks above Lieutenant of Police received same general salary increases as general employees. See General Salary

Changes-Police and Fire Service Personnel, 1960-70. (See table 2.)

Fire service personnel in ranks above Fire Lieutenant received same general salary increases as general management employees.

Police service personnel in ranks above Lieutenant of Police received same general salary increases as general management employees.

See General Salary Changes-Police and Fire Service Personnel, 1960-70. (See table 2.)

58

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 2. General salary changes-police and fire service personnel, Milwaukee

Pay period and year

Pay period 1, 1960

Pay period 1, 1961

Pay period 1, 1962

Pay period 1, 1963

Pay period 1, 1964

Pay period 1, 1965

Pay period 11, 1965

Pay period 1, 1966

Pay period 1, 1967

Pay period 1, 1968

Pay period 1, 1969

Pay period 15, 1969

Pay period 1, 1970

Provisions

Police and Fire--4 percent increase. All ranks

Applications, exceptions, and related matters

Police and Fire— Increases varied by class. Completely revised integrated pay plan adopted. See comments under General

Salary Changes for General Employees (table 1).

Police and Fire--No general increase. All ranks

Police and Fire— Advanced one salary step:

Equivalent to approximately a 4% percent

increase.

A H ranks

Police and Fire— 3 percent increase.

Fire— 3 percent or $12.50 per month (7 cents

. per hour), whichever was greater.

j Police--3 percent for ranks of Captain of

I Police and above

Police— 5% percent increase for ranks from

Police Matron through Lieutenant of Police

Police— 3 percent or 10 cents an hour,

whichever was greater.

Fire— 3 percent or 10 cents an hour,

whichever was greater.

Police— Flat increase of $1,077.24 per

year for ranks from Police Patrolman

through Lieutenant of Police; 3 percent

for ranks of Captain of Police and above.

All ranks

All ranks

New pay plan established for Police personnel provided 15 pay ranges covering

all police service ranks from Police Matron up to and including the Chief

of Police.

All ranks. Effective June 12 four pay ranges (71-74) established for Fire

service personnel below Fire Captain rank.

All ranks

Police Matron received a 3 percent increase for pay periods 1

Beginning with pay period 14 first three steps of annual pay

increased $300, fourth step $350, and maximum $400 over 1967

rates.

through 13.

range were

annual salary

Fire— 4 percent increase for ranks of

Firefighter through Fire Captain; 3 percent

for ranks above Fire Captain.

New pay plan established for Fire service personnel contained five pay ranges

covering ranks of Firefighter through Fire Captain. Ranks above Fire

Captain included in general pay schedule.

Police— No increase for ranks below Captain

of Police except Police Ma.tron; 3 percent for

ranks of Captain of Police and above'plus

special increase for'management classes.

Fire— Flat increase of $668.70 per year

for ranks from Firefighter through Fire

Captain; 3 percent for ranks above Fire

Captain plus special increase for management classes.

Police service pay plan reduced from 15 pay ranges to 7 pay ranges covering

only ranks below Captain of Police. Ranks of Captain of Police and above

included in general pay schedule. Police Matron received annual salary

increase equal to the increase granted in pay period 14, 1967.

Police--Flat increase of $500 per year for

ranks below Captain of Police, and 4

percent for Captain of Police and higher

ranks.

Fire--Flat increase of $400 per year for

ranks below Battalion Chief, and a 4

percent increase for Battalion Chief and

higher ranks.

Police— Additional increases for Captain

of Police and higher ranks to bring total

increases for 1969 to 35 cents an hour

where the 4 percent increase in January

amounted to less than 35 cents.

Recruitment rate for Firefighters was increased $500 per year.

Fire--Additional increases for Battalion

Chief and higher ranks to bring total

increase for 1969 to 35 cents an hour

where the 4 percent . increase in January

amounted to less than 35 cents.

Police— Flat increase of $250 per year for

ranks below Lieutenant of Police. 5% percent for Lieutenant of Police and higher

ranks.

Management classes (Lieutenant of Police and higher ranks) in new

Management Merit Review Pay Plan. In addition to 5% percent

general increase,employees receiving a favorable merit review

recommendation were advanced one additional step in the normal pay range.

Fire--Flat increase of $250 per year for ranks

below Fire Captain. 5% percent increase

for Fire Captain and higher ranks.

Management classes (Fire Captain and higher ranks) in new Management

Merit Review Pay Plan. In addition to 5% percent general increase^

employees receiving a favorable merit review recommendation were

advanced one additional step in the normal pay range.

Pay period 14, 1970 Police— Flat increase of $270 per year for

ranks below Lieutenant of Police. No

increase for ranks of Lieutenant of Police

and above.

Fire— Flat increase of $250 per year for

ranks below Fire Captain. No increase for

ranks of Fire Captain and above.

Recruitment rate for Firefighters was increased $270 per year.

Notes: Milwaukee usually has 26 biweekly pay periods each year; pay period 1 usually starts several days before January 1, of the new year,

All civilian employees in Fire and Police Departments received same salary increases as general city employees during the period

1960-70. (See table 1.) Civilian classes were included in pay plans for general city employees.

59

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 3. Overtime compensation—general city employees, Milwaukee

Year Provisions

1960 One and one-half hours compensatory time off, or

compensation in cash at time and one-half rate

or at other rate when specifically authorized,

for each hour of necessary overtime employment

that is worked before or after the normal hours

scheduled to be worked in each day, or for hours

in excess of the regularly scheduled 40 in a

week, and for work performed on legal holidays,

or on Saturdays or Sundays when such Saturdays

or Sundays are not a part of the scheduled work

week.

Accumulated compensatory time off credit for each

employee shall at no time exceed 180 hours.

When cash payment for overtime work is authorized

a department may allow compensatory time off when

work conditions permit.

When cash payment for overtime is authorized, it

shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half

(biweekly salary rate divided by 80 multiplied

by 1.5), unless a different rate is specifically

prescribed.

In case of death of an active employee, cash payment

shall be made to his estate for accrued but unused

overtime hours worked, not to exceed payment for

120 hours worked at the rate of time and one-half

(180 hours pay).

1961

Applications, exceptions, and related matters

! Cash payment at time and one-half (1.5) for overtime worked by Petroleum

j Station Custodian authorized when necessary to expedite delivery of

| petroleum products.

Cash payment at time and one-half (1.5) for overtime assignments of nurses

j at city operated hospitals authorized when necessary to promote the public

j health and to render more efficient service at city operated hospitals.

Cash payment at time and one-half (1.5) for overtime service of firemen at

city operated hospitals authorized when necessary due to the shortage of

I manpower and necessity to control contagion hazards among the residents

of the city.

Cash payment at time and one-half (1.5) for overtime assignments of meat

and food inspectors authorized when necessary to inspect a slaughtering

or meat packing plant conducting slaughtering or meat packing for a period

of more than 8 hours on Monday through Friday, or on Saturday.

Cash payment at time and one-half (1.5) for engineers, draftsmen, engineering

aides, project inspectors, and certain other supervisory and technical

employees in the Department of Public Works when overtime work is necessary

because of the extreme shortage of manpower or in other declared emergencies.

Bridgetenders working on any of the 6 principal holidays, or having an off

day on any such holiday, received one and one-half hours off during the

non-navigable season for each hour worked on such holidays.

Cash payment at rate of 1.56 (annual salary divided by 2,000 hours) for

overtime worked by foremen, mechanics and laborers in Harbor Commission

authorized when overtime is necessary to expedite the leading and unloading

of boats and railway cars for economy reasons or to meet the general

emergenices and conditions which arise in port operations. Cash payment

at time and one-half (1.5) for authorized overtime worked by supporting

clerical employees in field operations in such emergencies.

Cash payment at time and one-half (1.5) for overtime worked by library

staff of Milwaukee Public Library authorized when necessary to maintain

normal daily operations.

City departments authorized to make cash payment for overtime at time and

one-half (1.5) when snow removal work in excess of 40 hours per week is

necessary on account of heavy snowfall or special work caused by an

emergency as determined by the Commissioner of Public Works.

Cash payment at rate of 1.56 authorized for rotating shift employees at

filtration plant and pumping stations of Water Department for work in

excess of a pre-arranged schedule; pyramiding of overtime authorized.

Cash payment at rate of 1.56 for emergency overtime authorized by Commissioner

of Public Works for city operating and maintenance workers in trades and

labor positions. Cash payment at time and one-half (1.5) for overtime

worked by supporting clerical employees in field operations in such

emergencies.

Cash payment at time and one-half (1.5) authorized for overtime worked by

permanent staff members of Board of Election Commissioners on election

days or while making official recounts.

Employees in management positions excluded from provisions relating to

payment in cash or compensatory time off for overtime worked.

Added: Commissioner of Public Works authorized to employ Civil Engineers

III and Engineering Technicians VI in the Bureau of Engineers for overtime

work and to compensate for scheduled overtime in excess of 40 hours during

any one year either in cash or in time off at the rate of time and one-half;

overtime hours worked on a regular work day and any overtime of less than

four hours on a normal day off not to be credited in such 40-hour overtime

bank.

1963 Added: No overtime period of service nor the

compensation received therefore, shall be counted as

accruing toward credit or deduction on any annuity

pension rights.

1966 Change: Bridgetenders to receive 8 days off in lieu of pay or time off for

work on holidays at time and one-half, to be taken off during the nonnavigable season.

Added: Because of extreme shortage of manpower or in other declared emergencies, Commissioner of Public Works authorized to assign Engineering

Technicians V, Architectural Designers II, Engineers II, Draftsmen V, and

Engineering Draftsmen V for cash payment of overtime work at time and onehalf; however, no payment for any overtime of less than two hours in a day

nor for the first 40 hours of overtime in any one year, and no overtime of

less than two hours in a day to be credited to the limitation of 40 hours

in any year.

60

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 3. Overtime compensation—general city employees, Milwaukee--- Continued

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1968 Added: Cash payment at time and one-half (1.5) authorized for overtime

assignments of Health Department nurses, clinic assistants, and clerks in

immunization clinics when necessary to promote the public health and render

more efficient service at city immunization clinics.

Added: Cash payment at the rate of 1.56 authorized for overtime worked

in excess of a 100-hour accumulated balance of compensatory time off by

certain Department of City Development, Technical and Maintenance Division

classes: Building Inspectors; Draftsmen V; Maintenance Technicians;

Labor Foremen l; Maintenance Mechanics; Mechanic Helpers; Special Buildings

and Ground Laborers; City Laborers (Regular).

Eliminated: Provisions for cash payment at time and one-half (1.5) for

overtime worked by Petroleum Station Custodian; class was eliminated.

1969 Added: Cash payment at time and one-half (1.5) for overtime assignments

of clinic assistants and Health Department nurses authorized when necessary

to promote the public health and render more efficient service.

Added: Chief of Police authorized to employ Police Department employees

in the Buildings and Grounds Division within the certified collective

bargaining unit represented by District Council 48 for overtime assignments,

and to compensate for such assignments either in cash or in compensatory

time off at the rate of time and one-half.

Added: Bridge Operators also to receive one additional day off for work

on holidays at straight-time rate.

Added: Cash payment at rate of time and on-half (1.5) authorized for

overtime worked on weekends by computer operators in Department of Central

Electronic Data Services to perform emergency work resulting from computer

malfunctions.

1970 Added: Cash payment at time and one-half (1.5) authorized when necessary

to employ Field Supervisors (Rodent Control) and Foremen I (Rodent Control)

in Health Department for overtime work.

Added: When necessary, department heads may authorize engineers, architects,

engineering technicians and architectural designers in the certified bargaining

unit of the Technicians, Engineers, and Architects of Milwaukee for overtime

assignments with cash payment at time and one-half (1.5).

Change: Bridge Operators to receive 9 days off in lieu of pay or time off

for work on holidays at time and one-half, to be taken off during the

nonnavigable season. (Additional day off for holiday work eliminated).

Commissioner of Public Works authorized to provide cash payment for a

maximum of 4 hours of the total time off for Bridge Operators at a straighttime rate.

Mote: All civilian employees in

are eligible for cash for

the Fire and Police Departments except those in the Police Department's Building and Grounds Division, who

overtime assignments, receive compensatory time off for overtime assignments at the rate of time and one-half (1.5).

61

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 4. Overtime compensation—police and fire service personnel, Milwaukee

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960 Police— Cash overtime pay authorized on a straighttime basis in lieu of compensatory time off under

certain conditions when determined by the Chief

of Police to be required to meet the shortage of

qualified manpower in the patrol service and to

maintain an adequate patrol police force.

Police-Chief of Police may grant compensatory time off at straight-time

rate in lieu of cash overtime pay when feasible at his discretion.

Only designated police service classes may receive cash overtime pay.

Fire— One day per year granted as a vacation day in

lieu of cash or time off for overtime.

Fire— Day off in lieu of overtime compensation based upon authority of

the Chief Engineer, Fire.

1966 Fire— Eliminated the one vacation day per year in lieu

of cash or time-off for overtime in exchange for the

provision of recall pay for greater alarms and other

emergencies.

Fire— Recall pay provided a guaranteed minimum of 3 hours' per recall

for emergencies; maximum not to exceed employee's basic daily rate of pay.

1969 Police— Change: Overtime pay authorized at rate of

time and one-half either in cash or compensatory

time off at discretion of Chief of Police, for

time worked on regularly scheduled vacation or

off-days unless employee is notified one week in

advance.

Police— Not applicable to court time and training time.

Straight-time pay, either in cash or compensatory

time off at discretion of Chief of Police, for

first 12 hours overtime worked beyond or prior

to employee's 8-hour work day in any one pay

period. Overtime worked in excess of 12 hours

in any one pay period compensated at rate time

and one-half either in cash or compensatory time

off at discretion of Chief of Police.

Not applicable to court time, training time, or time worked in connection

with a proclaimed civil emergency. Cash overtime provision includes pay

for "roll-call time" prior to or after the end of an 8-hour work day.

All other overtime compensated at straight-time rate either in cash or

compensatory time-off at discretion of Chief of Police.

Fire— Added: Employees in designated fire

service classes on 56-hour average duty week required

to remain on duty at the scene of an alarm one-half

or less beyond their normal shift are granted

compensatory time off for such emergency overtime.

When required to remain on duty at scene of an alarm

for more than one-half hour, employee is compensated

in cash at rate of time and one-half computed on

basis of 55.079 hour average duty week for all

hours since end of shift.

Fire-Added: Maximum pay when required to remain on duty beyond end of normal

shift not to exceed employee's basic daily rate. Recall pay provision

essentially the same as in 1966. All other overtime compensated at straight

time off.

Bnployees in designated fire service classes on

56-hour average duty week when required to remain

in station after end of their normal shift onehalf hour or less, due to a greater alarm, granted

compensatory time off at straight-time rate for

such standby duty. If required standby duty time

exceeds one-half hour employee is compensated in

cash at straight-time rate computed on basis of

55.079 hour average duty week for all hours since

end of shift.

Note: All civilian employees in the Fire and Police Departments except those in the Police Department's Building and Grounds Division, who are

eligible for cash for overtime assignments, receive compensatory time off for overtime assignments at the rate of time and one-half (1.5).

62

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 5. Shift differential compensation—general city employees, Milwaukee

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960 Second shift - 7 cents per hour

Third shift - 11 cents per hour

Applicable to only those employees performing designated work regularly

scheduled for the second or third shift.

Shifts justifying shift differential compensation identified as follows:

2nd shift - 3:PM to 11:PM

3rd shift - 11:PM to 7:FM

Employee to be eligible for second or third shift premium rates must work

not less than 4 hours of his regular workday in either the second or the

third shift. Employees satisfying that requirement receive the shift

premium for the entire workday.

Personnel in positions allocated to pay range 25 and above not eligible

for differential payments.

Employee absent on compensated leave (vacation, sick leave, etc.) during

a period when normally assigned to second or third shift is paid at first

shift rates.

Employee paid at overtime rate, due to any cause, does not receive shift

differential pay in addition for the same hours regardless of period

worked.

Change:

Second shift - 9 cents per hour

Third shift - 13 cents per hour

Change:

Second shift - 11 cents per hour

Third shift - 16 cents per hour

1969 Change:

Second shift - 13 cents per hour

Third shift - 18 cents per hour

Change: Personnel in positions allocated to pay ranges 1 through 11 not

eligible for shift differential payments. (These positions were assigned

to pay range 25 and above in the 1960 pay schedule).

Change: Personnel in positions allocated to pay ranges 20 through 44 not

eligible for shift differential payments.

Change: Personnel in positions allocated to pay ranges 21 through 44 not

eligible for shift differential payments.

1970 Change:

Second shift -

Third shift -

15 cents per

20 cents per

hour

hour

Change: Personnel in positions allocated to pay ranges 21 through 44 for

non-management employees and personnel in management pay ranges M-9 through

M-32 not eligible for shift differential payments.

Note; Above provisions apply to eligible civilian employees in the Fire and Police Departments. Police and fire service personnel do not

receive shift differential compensation.

63

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 6. Weekend differential pay—general city employees, Milwaukee

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960

1964 A differential of 10 cents an hour paid for all hours

worked on Saturdays and Sundays on any of the three

shifts as a part of a regular work schedule.

Weekend work was defined as any work performed between the hours of 12:01 A.M.

Saturday and 12:01 A.M. the following Monday.

All employees eligible for shift differential compensation were eligible for

"weekend differential". Paid in addition to regular second and third shift

premiums, but not in addition to overtime compensation.

1966 Cha n g e : W e e k e n d differential increased to 12 cents

an hour.

1967 Change: Weekend differential increased

to 15 cents an hour.

Added: Water Department laboratory employeees at the Linwood Avenue

Filtration Plant made eligible for weekend differential pay.

Added: Bureau of Street Sanitation city laborers assigned duties as

whitewingers on regular schedule to clean streets or green markets and

Bureau of Municipal Equipment service maintenance personnel made eligible

for weekend differential pay.

Note: Weekend differential pay applies to designated eligible civilian employees in the Fire and Police Departments.(See table 7.)

Tab le 7. W eekend d ifferential pay— police and fire service personnel, M ilw au ke e

Year Provisions

1960

1964 A differential of 10 cents an hour paid for work on

Saturdays and Sundays by designated Police and Fire

Department personnel.

1965 Police — Change: Weekend differential pay was

eliminated for Police Department Officer personnel

formerly eligible for weekend differential.

1966 Police an d Fire— Change: W e e k e n d differential

increased to 12 cents an hour.

Applications, exceptions, and related matters

Weekend work for eligible Fire Department personnel was defined as any work

performed between the hours of 12:01 A.M. Saturday and 12:01 A.M. the

| following Monday.

i Weekend work for eligible Police Department personnel was defined as work

! on a tour of duty recorded on Police Department duty assignment records

j as a Saturday or Sunday tour of duty; provided that no police officer

J may receive weekend differential compensation for more than 16 hours

for any one weekend.

Eligible Fire Department personnel included Fire Alarm Dispatchers and

Assistant Chief Dispatchers.

Eligible Police Department personnel included all officer personnel up

to and including rank of Lieutenant of Police as well as early and late

shift custodial and civilian clerical personnel and elevator operators

at the Safety Building.

Police— Eligible Police Department personnel included Police Aides,

Police Matrons, and all Police Department civilian employees in pay

ranges 12 through 27 of the pay plan covering general employees.

Fire— No change in eligible Fire Department personnel.

1967 Police and Fire-Change: Weekend differential

increased to 15 cents an hour.

1968 Police— Eligible Police Department personnel still included civilian

employees in former pay ranges 12 through 27 now in pay ranges 3

through 19 in new 1968 pay plan.

Fire— Custodial workers in Fire Department made eligible.

1970 Police— Eligible Police Department personnel still included civilian

management employees formerly in 1969 pay ranges 13 through 18 (now

pay range M-l through M-6 in new 1970 Management Pay Plan), as well

as other civilian employees in pay ranges 3 through 19 in 1970 pay

plan for non-management general employees.

Fire— No change in eligible Fire Department personnel.

Note: Above provisions also apply to the designated eligible civilian employees in the Police Department. Civilian employees in the

Fire Department, in addition to those designated, who are eligible for shift differential compensation also are eligible for

weekend differential pay.

64

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 8. Vacation provisions—general city employees, Milwaukee

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960 10 working days with pay after 12 months' service,

IS working days after 10 years, and 20 working

days after 25 years.

Eligibility for vacation after 12 months of actual service following appointment, but accumulations retroactive to time of appointment. Employee whose

service is expected to continue so as to complete a year's actual service

may, after 6 months service, be allowed vacation within the year of appointment if the convenience of the service is promoted thereby. If employee

leaves service before completion of the initial 12 month period, vacation

is deemed unearned and vacation payments are deducted upon termination of

employment.

Vacation time is earned at rate of 1 day per month since last anniversary

date with a maximum of 10 days per calendar year for employees with less

than 10 years service; 1% days per month with a maximum of 15 days after

10 years; and 2 days per month with a maximum of 20 days after 25 years.

Vacation taken before full amount is earned is considered time owed until

earned. Vacation time owed city is deducted from compensation of employee

leaving service due to resignation, retirement, termination, discharge,

lay off, or death. Any employee leaving service due to resignation,

retirement, lay off, or death or who takes military leave is paid for

earned vacation time accumulated. Discharged employees are not entitled

to pay for accumulated vacation time.

Each year's vacation must be taken before December 31. Vacation time not

taken off by end of year is lost.

Employees injured at work or on military leave accumulate vacation time

at the same rate as if employed.

1964 Change: 20 working days after 20 years service. Change: Vacation time earned at rate of 2 days per month since last

anniversary date with a maximum of 20 days per calendar year after 20

years' service.

1967 Added: 25 working days after 30 years' service. Added: Vacation time earned at rate of 2% days per month since last

anniversary date with a maximum of 25 days per calendar year after 30

years' service.

1970 Change: 15 working days after 8 years service. Change: Vacation

anniversary date

years' service.

time

with

earned at rate of 1% days per month since last

a maximum of 15 days per calendar year after 8

Note: Above vacation provisions apply to all civilian employees in the Fire and Police Departments.

Ta b le 9. V a ca tio n provisions— police and fire service p erso nn e l, M ilw a u k e e

Year Provisions Applications exceptions, and related matters

1960 Police — 10 working days with pay after 12 months;

15 working days after 10 years' service; 20 working

days after 25 years.

Based on 40-hour workweek.

Fire - 14 calendar days after 12 months service;

21 calendar days after 10 years; 28 calendar days

after 25 years.

Based on 63-hour workweek.

1964 Police — Change: 20 working days off after 20 years'

service.

Fire — Change: 28 calendar days off after 20 years'

service.

1966 Fire — Clarification: 5 working days off after 12

months; 7 working days after 10 years; 10 working

days after 20 years.

1967 Police — Added: 25 working days off after 30

years' service.

Clarification: Based on adoption of 56-hour workweek.

Fire — Added: 12 working days off after 30

years' service.

Note: Vacation provisions for civilian employees in Fire and Police Departments are the same as for general city emplo y e e s . (See table 8).

65

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 10. Holiday pay provisions—general city employees, Milwaukee

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960 10 regular holidays plus 2 regular half holidays with

pay. In addition maximum of 3% election days off

with pay authorized when applicable.

Regular full days were: New Year's Day, Lincoln's Birthday, Washington's

Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day,

Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas. Half-days were: Good

Friday afternoon and State Fair (Milwaukee) Day afternoon. Election

days were: Municipal Flection Day, September Primary Election Day,

General Election Day, and Municipal Primary Election Day (afternoon only).

Holidays falling on Sunday celebrated on following Monday.

Bridgetenders received 6 work days off in lieu of holidays at one and

one-half time rate (see overtime compensation).

Did not apply to employees who received extta pay in lieu of holidays.

1961 Change: 1% election days applicable, Change: Election days were: Municipal Election Day and Municipal

Primary Election Day (afternoon only).

1962 Change: 3 election days applicable, Change: Election days were: Municipal Election Day, September Primary

Election Day, and General Election Day.

1963 Change: 8% regular holidays with pay. Washington's

Birthday, Columbus Day, and State Fair (Milwaukee)

Day afternoon eliminated as paid holidays, and two

work days off with pay added in lieu of 2% holidays

eliminated.

Change: Employees on payroll as of January 1, 1963 authorized 8% regular

holidays, 2 off days in lieu of 2% holidays eliminated, and maximum of

3% election days. First off day earned by any employee who remained in

service to March 1 of any year and second off day earned by any employee

who remained in service to October 1 of any year. Off days taken any

time during year with approval of department head.

Employees entering service on or after January 1, 1963 authorized 8%

regular holidays (New Year's Day, Lincoln's Birthday,- Memorial Day,

Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas,

and Good Friday afternoon) and maximum of election days.

1964 Change: 8% regular holidays with pay. Last normal

workday before Christmas and New Year's Day added

as paid holidays. Lincoln's Birthday and Veteran')

Day eliminated as paid holidays. 3% election days

eliminated, and 3 work days off with pay added in

lieu of 3% election days eliminated.

Change: Employees on payroll as of January 1, 1963 authorized 8% regular

holidays, two work days off in lieu of 2% holidays eliminated in 1963,

and 3 work days off in lieu of 3% election days eliminated.

Employees on payroll as of January 1, 1964 authorized 8% regular holidays

and 3 off days in lieu of 3% election days dropped.

Two off days annually, in lieu of 2% holidays eliminated in 1963, earned

at rate of 2/10 days for each month worked but not to exceed two days

annually. Such days scheduled and used in same manner as vacation days

with approval of department head.

Three off days annually, in lieu of 3% electLon days eliminated, earned

at rate of 3/10 day for each month worked but not to exceed three days

annually. Such days scheduled and used in same manner as vacation days

with approval of department head.

Employees entering service on or after January 1, 1964 authorized 8%

regular holidays.

Memorial Day and Indpendence Day falling on Saturdays observed as holidays

on preceding Fridays.

1966 Added: New Year's Day and Christmas falling on Saturdays to be observed

as holidays on following Mondays.

1967 Change: 9% regular holidays with pay. Friday after

Thanksgiving Day provided as paid holiday. Two off

days (was 3 work days off) in lieu of 3% election

days eliminated in 1964 in exchange for Friday after

Thanksgiving for employees on payroll on January 1, 1964.

Change: Two work days off in lieu of elimination of 3% election days in

1964 (was 3 work days off previously). Two off days annually earned at

rate of 2/10 days for each month worked but not to exceed two days

annually. Such days scheduled and used in same manner as vacation days

with approval of department head.

Employees on payroll as of January 1, 1963 authorized 9% regular holidays,

2 off days in lieu of 2% holidays eliminated in 1963, and 2 off days in

lieu of elimination of 3% election days in 1964.

&nployees on payroll as of January 1, 1964 authorized 9% regular holidays

and 2 off days in lieu of elimination 3% election days in 1964.

Employees entering service on or after January 1, 1964 authorized 9%

regular holiday.

1969 Added: 9% regular holidays with pay, plus one

"floating" work day off earned at 1/10 day for

each month worked not to exceed one day annually.

Added: New employees must complete 10 months of actual service during

his first calendar year of employment to become eligible for "floating"

off day. Eligible employee who leaves due to resignation, retirement,

lay off, or death, or who takes military leave is paid for accumulated

time to the nearest 1/10 of a day computed from January 1 of year of

severance. Discharged employees not entitled to pay for any accumulated

time toward said off-day.

Employees on payroll as of January 1, 1963 authorized 9% regular holidays,

2 off days in lieu of 2% holidays eliminated in 1963, 2 off days in lieu

of 3% election days eliminated in 1964, plus "floating" off day.

Qnployees on payroll as of January 1, 1964 authorized 9% regular holidays,

2 off days in lieu of 3% election days eliminated in 1964, plus "floating"

off day.

Employees entering service on or after January 1, 1964 authorized 9% regular

holidays plus "floating" off day.

Note: Holiday pay provisions for civilian employees in Fire and Police Departments are the same as for general city employees.

66

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 11. Holiday pay provisions—police and fire service personnel, Milwaukee

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960 Police— 7 off days per annum to compensate for

duty on legal holidays.

Fire— 6 consecutive calendar days off per annum

of 24 consecutive hours each for the purpose

of compensating for duty on legal holidays.

Police - Worked into regular work schedule.

Fire - Scheduled with vacation period.

1969 Fire— See explanation. Fire-Explanation: Two additional duty days off were granted to fire personnel

in 1969 reducing the average work week from 56 hours to 55.079. These were

not considered as added vacation days or holidays.

Note: Holiday pay provisions for civilian employees in Fire and Police Departments are the same as for general city employees. (See table 10.)

T a b le 12. C all-in pay p ro visio n s— general city em ployees, M ilw a u k e e

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960 Employee is credited with two hours pay at his

strAight-time rate if he reports to work at his

regularly-assigned time and is officially excused

and sent home due to lack of work or inclement

weather before completing two hours of work.

1963 Added: Employee who reports to work for an emergency

overtimd assignment and who is officially excused

before completing three hours of work is credited

with three hours pay at time and one-half.

Such credit is given in cash or in compensatory time-off in accordance with

Overtime Ordinance provisions.

1968 Added: Rnployees in Technical and Maintenance Division

of the Department of City Development assigned

to maintenance function in cases where they report for

authorized call-ins to unlock doors for tenants

unable to enter their locked apartments are credited

with a minimum of 1 hour's pay at time and one-half.

Such credit is given in eash or in compensatory time-off in accordance with

Overtime Ordinance provisions.

±

Note: Call-in pay provisions did not apply to Fire and Police Department personnel until in 1969 when employees in the Police Department's

Building and Grounds Division within the certified bargaining unit represented by District Council 48 were made eligible.

T a b le 13. O w e d tim e p ro visio n s— general city em ployees, M ilw a u k e e

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960 Officially-excused time lost for which employee was

compensated constitutes time owed City, and is

deducted from employee's pay to the extent he does

not work assigned emergency or other overtime

assignments except when excused from such

Owed time is made up (worked off) at rate of time and one-half.

assignments for a legitimate reason.

1969 Added: Employees who lose time from work during

regularly scheduled workweek because of civil

disturbances who were ready, willing, and able

to report to work are permitted to owe lost time.

Note: Owed time provisions did not apply to Fire and Police Department personnel until in 1969 when employees

Buildings and Grounds Division within the certified collective bargaining unit represented by District

in the Police Department's

Council 48 were made eligible.

67

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 14. Annual military training leave pay-city employees, Milwaukee

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960 Leave not to exceed 15 successive calendar days off with

full pay in addition to their military pay for such

training.

Granted upon presentation of satisfactory evidence of military, air force

or naval authority to take such training.

1964 Change: Leave not to exceed 15 successive calendar days

off with pay for such training.

Change: Full City pay in addition to their military pay only for employees

i who, because of honorable service in any of the wars of the United States,

are eligible for veteran's preference credit in City employment, as term

"Veteran" is defined in Section 16.18 and 63.37 of Wisconsin statutes

(1961). Other City employees to receive only the difference between their

regular City pay and military pay received during said period.

1969 Change: Wisconsin Statutes (1961) made optional with City's determination

of eligibility for veterans preference credit as a basis for full City pay

in addition to military pay for such training.

1970 Change: Leave not to exceed 15 successive calendar days

off; if taken on an intermittent basis, not to exceed

10 days. All employees subject to such training receive

full City pay in addition to their military pay.

Change: Full pay provision retroactive through December 22, 1968. Provision

expires December 31, 1970; contribution of benefit is subject to negotiations.

Note: Annual military training leave pay provisions cover all general city employees and all employees of Fire and Police Departments.

Table 15. M ilitary funeral leave pay—city em ployees. M ilw au ke e

i

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960 Time off with pay to attend military funeral of veterans

whose leave is requested by a proper veterans' organization for employee's service to conduct a proper

military funeral.

Note: Military funeral leave pay provisions cover all general city employees and all employees of Fire and Police Departments.

Ta b le 16. Pay for tim e o ff for m ilitary induction exam inations—city em ployees, M ilw au ke e

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960 Time off with pay while taking physical or mental

examinations for the purpose of eligibility for

induction in armed forces.

Note:

Table

Military induction examination pay provisions cover all general city employees and all employees of Fire and Police Departments.

17. Ju ry duty pay—city em ployees, M ilw au ke e

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960 Time off with pay for jury duty or jury service. Compensation received (exclusive of travel pay) for such duty or service to be

paid over to City Treasurer. Employee to retain payments for jury duty

service performed on off-days.

Note: Jury duty pay provisions cover general city employees and all employees of Fire and Police Departments.

68

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 18. Sick leave benefits—general city employees, Milwaukee

Year Provisions

1960 One and one-quarter (Ifc) working days

each month of service, not to exceed

Total accumulation was limited to 90

Applications, exceptions, and related matters

with full pay for

15 days per year,

working days.

Employee eligible after 6 months service, but sick leave accumulated

retroactive to time of appointment.

Maximum of 3 days sick leave allowed because of death in immediate

family when both death and funeral occur in Milwaukee or its vicinity.

When either death or funeral occurs elsewhere, travel time in addition

to day of funeral is allowed as sick leave.

Any employee sustaining compensable injury or contracting compensable

disease under Workmen's Compensation Law has option of accepting

sick leave benefits or workmen's compensation after "injury pay"

benefits are exhausted. (See Duty-Incurred Disability Benefit

Provisions).

Separation by resignation or for cause cancels all unused accumulated

sick leave allowance. Bnployee laid off due to lack of work or

funds loses accumulated sick leave if not rehired within one year.

Sick leave terminates on date of retirement or on date ordinary

disability allowance under retirement system becomes effective.

1962 Change: Eliminated 90 days total accumulation limit,

Accumulation up to 90 working days now termed the

"normal sick leave account" with sick leave granted

at full pay. Accumulation in excess of 90 working

days now termed the "special sick leave account"

with sick granted at half pay.

Added "special sick leave account?'not charged until normal sick leave

account is exhausted. When the balance in the normal sick leave

account falls below 90 working days, additional earned but unused

days are credited in employee's "normal sick leave account" until

a total of 90 working days is again reached; additional credits

are accumulated in the "special sick leave account".

1966 Added: Calendar days used for computations of sick leave used for

funeral leave, but sick leave days only charged for regular work

days. Definition of immediate family expanded to include motherin-law and father-in-law for funeral leave.

1967 Added: One day of sick leave with pay allowed to attend funeral

of employee's grandparents.

Note: Sick leave benefits for civilian employees in the Fire and Police Departments are earned at the same rate (15 days a year),

but their usage and accumulation provisions are somewhat more liberal than for other general city employees. (See table 19.)

Tab le 19. S ick leave b enefits— police and fire service personnel, M ilw a u k e e

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960 Police — 15 working days' sick leave with pay

earned per year at rate of li working days per

month of service. No maximum on accumulation

New employees are eligible as soon as any sick leave credit is earned.

Maximum amount of sick leave with pay granted for any one period of

sick leave not to exceed 365 calendar days, regardless of length of

service or amount of sick leave credit accumulated.

Absence due to death in family or sickness in family is accounted for

separately as provided by rules and regulations of Police Department.

1960 Fire — 21 calendar days' sick leave with pay earned

per year at rate of 1 2/3 calendar days per month

of service.

No maximum on accumulation.

New employees are eligible as soon as any sick leave credit is earned.

Maximum amount of sick leave with pay granted for any one period of

sick leave not to exceed 365 calendar days, regardless of length of

service or amount of sick leave credit accumulated.

Sick leave is granted with pay because of death in immediate family,

beginning with time of death to and including the day of funeral.

Immediate family is defined as husband or wife, brother, sister,

parent or child of employee, including foster parents and foster

children.

Sick leave is granted with pay on the day of funeral of a grandchild,

grandparent, father-in-law or mother-in-law of employee.

Note: Above sick leave benefits also apply to all civilian employees in Fire and Police Departments.

69

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 20. Health benefit plans—city employees, Milwaukee

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960 Blue Cross-Blue Shield hospital and surgical-medical care

coverage provided employee on a noncontributory basis,

and on a contributory basis for family coverage.

Participant paid first $25 of covered in-hospital patient

charges. Subscriber and dependents eligible for 70 days

of hospital service for each period of disability.

Blue-Shield physician fee allowances for services rendered

in or out of hospital ranged from up to $5 to $700.

For medical (non-surgical) care in hospital Blue Shield

paid up to $4 per day for up to 70 days of medical care

for each period of disability starting with first day

of hospitalization.

City paid entire cost of monthly premium of $5.43 for single contract (employee

coverage). Employee paid $7.70 and City $6.87 for family contract coverage

premium.

Period for same cause, condition, disease or ailment renewed for subscriber

after 90 days have elapsed between periods of hospitalization.

New employees eligible for enrollment after 30th day of employment. Insured

employee going on pension automatically eligible to transfer directly into

pension groups with no lapse of protection.

1962 Change: Blue Cross-Blue Shield employee hospital and

surgical-medical care coverage made contributory.

Hospital care increased from maximum of 70 days to

maximum of 120 days. Maximum of 70 days of care in

sanitaria for nervous or mental conditions added.

Maximum Blue Shield physician fee allowance increased

to $850.

Change: Blue-Shield medical (nonsurgical) care in

hospital increased from maxiumum of 70 days to

maximum of 120 days.

1963 Added: Major Medical coverage provided at employee's

option entirely paid by employee.

After employee paid out $100 for covered medical

expenses during a calendar year-(the deductible

amount)-plan paid 80 percent of covered medical

expenses thereafter, up to a maximum of $10,000.

1964

1965 Change: Employee Blue Cross-Blue Shield hospital

and medical-surgical care coverage made noncontributory. Family coverage remained contributory

until July 1965 when it was made noncontributory

also.

Change: Employee covered by single contract paid $1 per month and City paid

$5.17. Employee having family contract coverage paid $8.70 and City $8.88.

No change in deductible amount of $25. For readmissions within 20 days no

deductible on subsequent hospital stays.

Employee paid monthly Major Medical premium of $1.16 for single plan

and $2.41 for family plan.

Change: City's share of Blue Cross-Blue Shield single plan contract premium

increased to $5.46 and to $9.74 for family contract premium.

No change in employee's share of single and family contract premium.

Change: City's share of Blue Cross-Blue Shield single plan contract premium increased to $6.14 and to $13.48 for family contract premium. Employee's

share of family contract premium reduced to $6 from $8.70. No change in

employee's share of single contract premium.

Change: Employee made no payment for Blue Cross-Blue Shield single contract

coverage and City paid entire cost of monthly premium of $7.82. Employee

paid $3 per month for family coverage and City $17 until July 1965. City

paid entire monthly premium of $20 for family coverage beginning July 1965.

1966 Added: Podiatric care added under Blue Cross-Blue

Shield plan.

1967 Change: Hospital care increased from maximum of 120

days to maximum of 365 days, and from 70 days to

maximum of 120 days for nervous and mental care.

No changes in deductible.

Diagnostic services increased from maximum of $50

per year to maximum of $100 as provided by $100

Mutualized Blue Cross-Blue Shield Diagnostic

Amendment. Blue Cross paid for outpatient hospital charges for diagnostic X-ray and laboratory

examinations for each covered participant per

calendar year. Surgical Care-Blue Shield to provide

for physician's charges for diagnostic X-ray and

laboratory examination for each covered participant

per calendar year. Any portion of the $100 to be

used for either the hospital’s or the physician's

charges.

Blue Shield medical (nonsurgical) care by physicians

in hospitals up to $4 per day increased to maximum

of 365 days (was 120 days) in general hospital and

120 days of care in sanitaria.

No change in Blue Shield physician fee allowances.

1968 --------------------------------------------------------

1969

1970 Added: Free Major Medical coverage for employee and

family dependents provided by City. Formerly

employee paid full cost if enrolled.

Change: Blue Cross-Blue Shield monthly premium for employee coverage paid

by City increased to $8.36 and to $21.32 for family coverage.

Added: Employee not to receive duplicate coverage for same cdre by Blue CrossBlue Shield plan and under another group plan. Employee not to receive

duplicate coverage under Blue Cross-Blue Shield plan and under Medicare.

Employees entitled to benefits under Medicare to receive those benefits first

and Blue Cross-Blue Shield supplemental benefits provided by latter plan.

Change: Blue Cross-Blue Shield monthly premium for employee coverage paid by

City increased to $8.42 and to $21.47 for family coverage.

Change: Blue Cross-Blue Shield monthly premium for employee coverage paid by

City increased to $9.18 and to $23.38 for family coverage.

Change: Blue Cross-Blue Shield monthly premium for employee coverage paid by

City increased to $11.26 and to $28.66 for family coverage.

City paid $1.15 Major Medical monthly premium for single plan contract and $2.36

for family contract coverage. Not available to retired employees.

If more than one member of family is injured in a common accident, only $100

deductible is applied to expenses incurred in that accident. Maximum of $300

in deductibles per family per year.

Sanitorium or nursing home service limited to 90 days.

Change: Blue Cross-Blue Shield monthly premium for employee coverage paid by

City increased to $12.22 and $31.12 for family coverage.

Note: Health benefit plans cover general city employees and all employees of Fire and Police Departments.

70

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 21. Duty-incurred disability benefits—general city employees, Milwaukee

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

.. ......................... ................................ .........................

1960 Full pay ("injury pay") in lieu of workmen's compensation for any duty-incurred injury within scope of

Workmen's Compensation Law.

"Injury pay" for the period of time employee may be temporarily totally

« or temporarily partially disabled not to exceed one calendar year from

day following date of injury.

Employee has option of accepting sick leave benefits or accepting workmen's

compensation after "injury pay" benefits have been exhausted. (See

Sick Leave Benefits). Option can be terminated in writing without

prejudice to Workmen's Compensation benefits thereafter, but sick

leave already used is not restored.

1962 Change: Employee in no case to receive "injury pay" for more than one

year (250 working days) during his entire period of employment with the

city regardless of the number of compensable Injuries involved.

Note: Duty-incurred disability benefits differ for civilian employees in Fire and Police Departments. (See ta ble 22.)

Ta b le 22 . D uty-incurred d isability b en efits— police and fire service personnel, M ilw a u k e e

Year Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1960 Police and Fire — Full pay ("injury pay") in lieu

of workmen'8 compensation for any duty-incurred

injury incurred within scope of Workmen's Compensation Law.

"Injury pay" for the period of time employee may be temporarily totally

or temporarily partially disabled is subject to the following limitations:

(a) Injury pay may be granted for a maximum of one year

for any one injury or recurrence of such injury.

(b) Injury pay may be granted for another full year for

any other injury not related to a former injury.

Employee has the option of accepting sick leave benefits or accepting

workmen's compensation after "injury pay" benefits have been exhausted

(See Sick Leave Benefits). Option may be terminated in writing without

prejudice to Workmen's Compensation benefits thereafter, but sick leave

already used is not restored.

Note: Above benefits also apply to all civilian employees in Fire and Police Departments.

71

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 23. Group life insurance—city employees, Milwaukee

Year

1960 None

Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

1961 Contributory group life insurance plan on a voluntary

basis after 6 months qualifying service, providing

insurance coverage equal to employee's basic annual

salary to the next higher $1,000 of earnings.

City and employees shared equally aggregate cost of monthly premium of SO cents

for each $1,000 of life insurance. Eight (8) cents of premium was placed in a

"Group Life Insurance Reserve Fund" for the purpose of stabilizing the monthly

premium in future years in a manner to be determined by the Common Council.

Entire premium cost was assumed by the City when employee or retiree reached

age 65, or when employee was disabled.

Employee who waived coverage within 30 days of his original eligibility date,

and then applied for coverage must be under age 50, wait one year from date of

application, and submit evidence of insurability to insurance company at his

own expense.

Eligible employee was required to take the maximum coverage provided in the plan.

At age 65, coverage was reduced to 75 percent of annual salary; at age 66 to 50

percent of annual salary; and at age 67 and thereafter to 25 percent of annual

salary.

An insured employee entitled to retire after age 55 after 25 years of service

under his respective retirement plan (after 25 years' service regardless of

age for police and fire personnel) and who did so paid a monthly premium of

46 cents and City paid 8 cents per month until age 65 when City assumed

entire cost of premium. Eight (8) cents of the total premium ( 4 cents from

•both the employee and Citj)was placed in the "Group Life Insurance Reserve

Fund".

An insured employee who retired without retirement benefits was eligible for

coverage if retirement took place at age 60 or older, or in the case of

firemen and policemen at age 57 or older. Such employees were, required to

pay the same premium until age 65 as employees retiring earlier with retirement

benefits.

1962

1964

1967

1968

1969 Change: Free group life insurance on a voluntary basis

after 6 months qualifying service providing coverage

equal to employee's basic annual salary to next $1,000

up to maximum of $7,000. Contributory plan for coverage above $7,000 equal to employee's basic annual

salary to the next $1,000.

1970 Change: Free group life insurance on an voluntary basis

after 6 months qualifying service providing coverage

equal to employee's basic annual salary to next $1,000

up to maximum of $8,000. Contributory plan for coverage above $8,000 equal to employee's basic annual salary

to next $1,000.

Change: City and employee shared equally aggregate cost of monthly premium

of 42 cents per $1,000 of insurance. Contribution of equal payments of

4 .cents by City and employee to the "Group Life Insurance Reserve Fund" was

eliminated, since fund was eliminated.

Retired employee was required to pay monthly premium of 42 cents and City paid

4 cents until age 65.

Change: Employee paid monthly premium of 21 cents and City paid 29 cents per

$1,000 of insurance.

Retired employee was required to pay monthly premium of 44 cents and City paid

6 cents until age 65.

Employee paid monthly premium of 21 cents and City paid 31 cents per $1,000 of

insurance.

No change in premium costs for retired employees.

Change: Employee paid monthly premium of 21 cents and City paid 32 cents per

$1,000 of insurance.

Retired employee was required to pay monthly premium of 47 cents and City paid

6 cents until age 65. Retirement plan was changed to permit retirement after

age 55 with 20 years of service (previously after 25 years of service).

Change: City assumed full cost of monthly premium of 54 cents per $1,000 of

insurance up to maximum of $7,000. Employee paid monthly premium of 21 cents

and City paid 33 cents per $1,000 for coverage above $7,000.

Retired employee was required to pay monthly premium of 48 cents and City paid

6 cents until age 65.

Change: City assumed full cost of monthly premium of 56 cents per $1,000 of

insurance up to maximum of $8,000. Employee paid monthly premium of 21 cents

and City paid 35 cents per $1,000 for coverage above $8,000.

Retired employee paid entire monthly premium cost of 56 cents until age 65.

Reduction in amount of free insurance coverage for employee's who retired

prior to January 1, 1970 commences at age 65; reduction provision same as in

1961.

Change: E ffe ctiv e fo r employees re tirin g a fte r January 1, 1970, no reduction

in insurance coverage occurs at age 65; at age 66 coverage is reduced to 66-2/3 

percent; and at age 67 and th ereafter coverage is reduced to 33-1/3 percent. 

City continued to pay premiums fo r re tire e s age 65 and over.

Note: Group life insurance covers general city employees and all employees of Fire and Police Departments.

72

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 24. 1970 Retirement benefits under employes'retirement system—city employees, Milwaukee

Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

Participation requirements -

Employees become members of the System as a condition of

employment.

Types of membership -

(1) Coordinated Plan (coordinated with Social Security

Program)

(2) Basic or Non-Coordinated Plan

(3) Plan for Firemen and Policemen

Employee contributions -

General employees: City pays full contribution rate of 5%

percent of employee's earnings (excluding overtime

compensation).

Policemen and firemen: City pays 6 percent of full contribution rate of 7 percent of employee's earnings (excluding overtime compensation). Employee pays remaining one

percent.

Service retirement -

General employees: Age 60

Policemen and firemen: Age 52 with 25 year's service or

at age 57.

Service retirement allowance -

General employees: Annual allowance is equal to $1.90 per

each $100 of employee's final average salary for each

year of service.

Policemen and firemen: Annual allowance is equal to $2.15

per each $100 of employee's final average salary for each

of the first 25 years, and $2.30 for each year over 25.

Ordinary disability retirement allowance -

General employees: Annual allowance is equal to $1.71 per

$100 of employee's final average salary for each year of

service to disability.

Policemen and firemen: Annual allowance is equal to

$1,935 per $100 of employee's final average salary for

each of the first 25 years of service, plus $2.07 for

each year over 25.

Duty disability retirement allowance -

75 percent of employee's final average salary plus

additional allowance based on employee's contributions.

Ordinary death benefits -

Contributions together with interest paid designated

beneficiary.

If employee has over one year of service, an additional

benefit of one-half his final average salary is paid to

beneficiary.

Duty death benefits -

Contributions together with interest paid beneficiary and,

instead of lump sum ordinary death benefit, a pension of

one-half of employee's final average salary is paid to

widow or children as long as widow is unmarr.ied or

employee's children are under 18, or to a dependent

father or mother.

All general employees who have entered service on or after

January 1, 1958, are automatically members of this plan.

Also includes employees with prior service who subsequently have elected to participate in the Social Security

Program.

Includes those general employees who entered service prior

to January 1, 1958 and who did not elect to join the

Coordinated Plan at the time it was established, or have

not joined subsequently when permitted to.

Firemen and policemen are not eligible for Social Security

Act coverage.

Also see Firemen and Policemen's Survivorship Fund.

General employees must retire at age 70, and policemen and

firemen at age 63.

See separation benefits

Employee's final average salary is the average of his basic

compensation (without overtime pay) during the 3 years

when his compensation was the highest.

If an employee is a member of the Coordinated Plan, and

entitled to a Social Security benefit at age 65, the

maximum allowance he can receive from Social Security

and the City is 80 percent of his final average salary.

Firemen and policemen are not eligible for Social

Security Act coverage.

At time of retirement employee must select one of the several

reduced allowance options described under Optional Benefits

to provide death benefit to designated beneficiaries.

Minimum ordinary disability allowance is 25 percent of

employee's final average salary.

If employee has less than 10 years of service, the allowance

is paid as long as he is disabled up to one-auarter of the

time he worked for City.

If employee has over 10 years of service, the allowance is

payable as long as he is disabled.

If a person is employed and received earnings while receiving

a disability allowance, his earnings plus allowance cannot

exceed the current salary for the position held at retirement.

Ordinary disability allowance is also subject to the 807.

limit, indicated above, if employee is member of Coordinated Plan and receives a Social Security disability

benefit.

Paid instead of ordinary disability allowance if employee is

totally and permanently disabled as a result of an injury

while performing his job.

Duty disability allowance is subject to 1007. limit for a

Coordinated Plan merber when he becomes eligible for

Social Security benefits.

State or Federal Compensation payments on account of the same

disability are offset against allowance.

Beneficiary can take benefit as lump sum, or as monthly payments over any time period, or as a lifetime benefit.

Also see Firemen and Policemen's Survivorship Fund benefits.

Also see Firemen and Policemen's Survivorship Fund benefits.

See notes at end o f table.

73

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 2 4 . 1970 R etire m e n t ben efits under e m plo y es' retire m en t syste m —c ity em ployees,

M ilw a u k e e — Continued

Provisions Applications, exceptions, and related matters

Separation benefits -

Employee on ceasing to be employed by City can always

request accumulated contributions returned in cash.

If employee voluntarily leaves service after working 5

years he is eligible for deferred retirement allowance

if he leaves contributions in system. At age 60 (or age

57 for firemen and policemen) he is entitled to a retirement allowance based on years of service and final

average salary at time he leaves the City’s service.

If employee is separated from service for any cause other

than fault or delinquency on his part after 15 years of

service and after reaching age 55, he can elect to have

allowance start immediately, but allowance will be

reduced to take into account that it starts at an earlier

date.

If employee is involuntarily separated from service for any

cause other than fault or delinquency on his part, he

has option to elect an immediate allowance (actuarially

reduced) or leave contributions in the System for a

retirement allowance payable at the minimum service

retirement age.

Optional reduced allowance benefits -

Option 1-a: Reduced retirement allowance for life provided

that if retiree dies before he has received payments

from that portion of allowance equal to his contributions with interest, the balance, if any, will be paid to

his beneficiary in a lump sum.

Option 1-b: Reduced retirment allowance for life provided

that if retiree dies before he has received total allowance payments equal to his contributions plus interest,

the balance, if any,will be paid to his beneficiary in

a lump sum.

Option 2: Reduced retirement allowance for life provided that

if retiree dies, the same reduced allowance will continue

to beneficiary for life.

Option 3: Reduced retirement allowance for life provided

that if retiree dies one-half of the reduced allowance

will continue to beneficiary for life.

Option 4: Any other optional allowance approved by Annuity

and Pension Board.

Protective survivorship option -

An employee continuing to work after reaching minimum

retirement age may elect the Protective Survivorship

Option six months before he reaches minimum service

retirement age of 60 (age 57 or age 52 with 25 years of

service for firemen or policemen). With this option, he

must elect Option 2, 3, or 4 as the form of retirement

allowance to be paid after retirement or in event of his

death before retirement.

Firemen and Policemen's Survivorship Fund -

Firemen and policemen pay an annual contribution of 0.87

percent of the first $6,000 of annual earnings (a maximum of $52.20 yearly) to the fund and City matches

contribution.

Fund pays

(a) $200 per month to widow as long as there is one

or more unmarried children under 18.

(b) $100 per month to widow starting at age 62 if

there are no unmarried children under age 18,

and widow does not remmary

Option l-b provides a slightly higher current allowance but

reduced the benefit payable to the beneficiary.

This option provides beneficiary with a life-time pension

instead of the lump sum death benefit beneficiary would

receive as provided under "Ordinary Death Benefit."

When all children reach age 18, benefit ceases until widow

reaches age 62, when benefit of $100 per month starts,

if not remarried at that time.

If widow remarries, the $200 allowance continues as long

as there are two or more children under 18.

If, after death or remarriage of widow there remained only

one child, allowance would be $100 per month until

child reached 18.

If there is a disabled dependent child whose disability

commenced before age of 18, child may be eligible to

to have benefits continued on after age 18.

If there is no surviving widow or children, dependent

parents may be eligible for benefits.

Widower is entitled to same benefits as widow, except that

if there are no children eligible for benefits, benefit

paid to widower commences at age 65.

NOTES: This summary of retirement benefits is limited to current 1970 benefits provided by the Employes4 Retirement

System of the City of Milwaukee. The System was established January 1, 1938, under provisions of Chapter 396, Wisconsin

Laws of 1937. The Retirement System law has been amended from time to time and the following major changes were made:

1947: Firemen, policemen, and elected officials brought under the System. City given Home Rule powers to amend the

Retirement Act.

1951: Basic formula of the System changed to increase retirement benefits; the final average salary, upon shich benefits

were figured, was changed to the average of the five highest earnings years; and contribution rates were increased

to provide for the increased benefits.

1957: System divided to permit members desiring Social Security coverage to elect such coverage under a modified plan

coordinated with Social Security.

1958: Since January 1, 1958, all eligible new employees are automatically enrolled under the Coordinated Plan. Firemen

and Policemen's Survivorship Fund created.

1959: Members who were eligible to come within provisions of the Coordinated Plan at time it was created but did not

do so giver opportunity to be transferred to the group covered by the Coordinated Plan retroactive to

January 1, 1956, or the date covered earnings first paid, if later.

74

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M ilw a u k e e ---- C o n t in u e d

NOTES— Continued

1960: Provisions made to limit the annual salary on which contributions were made to the Firemen and Policemen's Survivorship Fund to $6,000, and to reduce the period of creditable service reouired for eligibility for ordinary disability retirement for firemen and policemen from 15 years to 10 years.

Limit on the final average salary to be used in determining the reduction offset in the pension payable after a

member of the Coordinated Planbecomes eligible for Social Security benefits changed so that with respect to service

prior to January 1, 1960, only the first $4,200 of final average salary is used, and after that date the first

$4,800 of the final average salary is used. Reduction was limited to 50 percent of the member's Social Security

primary insurance benefit.

Provision regarding the lump sum death benefit payable on the death of a member of the Coordinated Plar was changed

so that dependents eligible to receive Survivor's insurance benefits under the Social Security Act received the

same benefit from the System as those who wore not so eligible; however, an adjustment was made for the lump sum

amount paid by Social Security.

An additional optional plan (Option 1-b) was created which members could select at time of retirement. This option

is similar to the original Ootion 1, which was renumbered Option 1-a. Option 1-b provides a slightly higher

current allowance but reduces the benefit payable to the beneficiary.

Changes made with respect to excess contributions to provide that a member could withdraw such contributions.

1961: Changes made to permit eligible Non-Coordinated Plan members to elect transfer to the Coordinated Plan prior to

June 1, 1962; to reduce creditable service requirement for eligibility for ordinary disability retirement for

general employees from 15 to 10 years, the same as for firemen and policemen; and to remove the maximum pension

provision and the State Workmen's Compensation Award offset against accidential death benefits payable to dependents of members.

1963: Firemen's and policemen's survivorship benefits increased to provide a monthly allowance of $175 for a widow with

one or more children, or $87.50 per month for an individual benefit (one dependent child or a widow).

1964: Change made in disability provisions to provide that earnings limit should be based on difference between retirement

allowance and current salary for position.

1965: Change made to remove the offset under the Coordinated Plan effective January 1, 1967, for all members who retired

after December 31, 1965. The 70 percent Coordinated Plan limit was not removed.

Non-Corrdinated Plan members given another opportunity to transfer to the Coordinated Plan during 1966.

Provisions made for a member to make one lump sum payment into an excess contribution account of an amount equal

to the amount deducted from his annuity account for retroactive Social Security taxes.

1966: Firemen's and policemen's survivorship benefits increased to provide an allowance of $200 per month for a widow

with one or more children, or $100 per month for an individual benefit, (one dependent child or a widow).

1967: Change made to provide that a fireman or policeman who retired after July 1, 1967, because of an approved disability, was eligible to participate in the firemen and policemen's survivorship benefits by continuing his

contributions to the survivorship fund.

1968: Firemen and Policemen's Survivorship Fund contribution rate increased to 0.87 percent of the first $6,000

earnings.

Outside earnings allowance for disability pensioners increased.

Provision made for the employer to pay the employee's contribution.

Final average salary changed to a highest 3-year average. Rate of employee contribution set at 5.5 percent of

basic salary for general employees and 7 percent for firemen and policemen.

Computation of service retirement allowance simplified. Service retirement formula for general employees

changed to 1.9 percent of final average salary for each year of creditable service. Service retirement

formula for firemen and policemen changed to 2.15 percent of final average salary for the first 25 years of

creditable service and 2.30 percent for each year thereafter.

Firemen and policemen attaining age 52 with 25 years of creditable service made eligible for full service

retirement allowance.

Coordinated Plan limit of 70 percent was increased to 75 percent for retirements after January 1, 1969.

Optional survivorship plan was provided for active members, to be elected within the 6 months prior to attainment of the minimum service retirement age.

1969: Coordinated Plant limit was increased from 75 percent to 80 percent after January 1, 1970.

1970: Provision made to remove the $250 Coordinated Plan offset from the Ordinary Death benefit.

Table 24. 1970 Retirement benefits under employes' retirement system—city employees,

75

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 25. Clothing allowance and related practices—city employees, Milwaukee

Year General Employees Fire and Police Service Personnel

1960 Public health nurses and sanitation inspectors:

$60 annual uniform replacement allowance.

Hospital personnel exposed to communicable

diseases (nurses, maids, janitors and laundry

workers): Uniforms provided daily.

Fire and police-uniformed: $250 initial issue uniform allowance;

$90 annual uniform replacement allowance after 12 months' service.

1961 Change:

Public health nurses and sanitation inspectors:

Annual uniform replacement allowance increased

from $60 to $90.

Change:

Fire and Police - uniformed: Annual uniform replacement allowance

increased to $125.

1963 Change:

Police-uniformed: Initial issue uniform allowance increased to

$290.

Police-motorcycle: $260 initial issue uniform allowance provided.

1964 Added:

Automotive mechanics and helpers: Coverall

service provided. Garbage collection laborers:

Raingear furnished.

Aborists: Work shoes furnished.

Change:'

Police-un iform ed: I n it ia l issue uniform allowance increased to

$305.

Police-motorcycle: Initial issue uniform allowance increased to

$270.

Added:

Detectives, detective sergeants and policewomen-non-uniformed: $60

annual clothing replacement allowance.

Change:

Fire-uniformed: Initial issue uniform allowance increased to

$260.

1965 Added:

i Museum guards: $60 annual uniform replacement

allowance.

; Museum truck drivers: Uniform jackets and caps

furnished.

1966 I Added:

' Water Department meter readers in field: $38

j annual uniform replacement allowance.

1967

Change:

Police-uniformed: Initial issue uniform allowance increased to

$330.

Police-motorcycle: Initial issue uniform allowance increased to

$295.

Change:

Detectives and policewomen-non-uniformed: Annual clothing allowance

increased to $125.

1968

1969

Added:

Licensed practical nurses: $90 annual uniform

replacement allowance.

Change:

Police-uniformed: Initial issue uniform allowance increased to

$375.

Police-motorcycle: Initial issue uniform allowance increased to

$330.

Detective sergeants-non-uniformed: Annual clothing allowance increased

to $125.

Fire-uniformed: Initial issue uniform allowance increased to $310;

and annual uniform replacement allowance increased to $135.

Digitized for FRASER 

76

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 26. 1960 salary rates, all city employees, Milwaukee

Biweekly, monthly, ard annual salary rates

Pay

range Step rates

Interval

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Biweekly $122.81 $131.60 $136.79 $141.98 $147.17 $153.39

Monthly 267.54 286.70 298.00 309.31 320.61 334.18

Arnual 3,210.48 3,440.40 3,576.00 3,711.72 3,847.32 4,010.16

2 Biweekly 144.56 150.08 156.69 _ .

Monthly 314.94 326.97 341.35 - _ .

Annual 3,779.28 3,923.64 4,096.20 - - -

3 Biweekly 150.08 156.69 164.70 _ .

Monthly 326.97 341.35 358.81 - - .

Annual 3,923.64 4,096.20 4,305.72 - - -

4 Biweekly 147.17 153.39 160.60 166.20 172.79

Monthly 320.61 334.18 349.87 362.08 376.43 _

Annual 3,847.32 4,010.16 4,198.44 4,344.96 4,517.16 -

5 Biweekly 166.20 173.92 181.75 184.04 .

Monthly 362.08 378.89 395.95 400.95 _ _

Annual 4, 344. 96 4,546.68 4,751.40 4,811.40 -

6 Not in use

7 Biweekly 173.92 181.75 189.63

Monthly 378.89 395.95 413.12 _

Annual 4,546.68 4,751.40 4,957.44 -

8 Biweekly 176.35 184.47 192.36 _ .

Monthly 384.20 401.89 419.06 - _ .

Annual 4,610.40 4,822.68 5,028.72 - - -

9 Biweekly 166.20 172.79 180.56 188.55 196.44

Monthly 362.08 376.43 393.37 410.78 427.96 _

Annual 4,344.96 4,517.16 4,720.44 4,929.36 5,135.32 -

10 Biweekly 181.75 191.29 199.17 _ .

Monthly 395.95 416.73 433.90 - _ _

Annual 4,751.40 5,000.76 5,206.80 - -

11 Not in use

12 Biweekly 191.29 199.46 207.34 _ .

Monthly 416.73 434.53 451.71 _ _ _

Annual 5,000.76 5,214.36 5,420.52 - - -

13 Biweekly 180.56 188.55 196.44 206.00 213.88

Monthly 393.37 410.78 427.96 448.78 465.96 _

Annual 4,720.44 4,929.36 5,135.52 5,385.36 5,591.52 -

14 Biweekly 196.44 206.00 213.88 . .

Monthly 427.96 448.78 465.96 - _ _

Annual 5,135.52 5,385.36 5,591.52 - - -

15 Biweekly 196.44 202.99 211.45 219.34 . .

Monthly 427.96 442.22 460.66 477.84 _ _

Annual 5,135.52 5,306.64 5,527.92 5,734.08 - -

16 Biweekly 196.44 202.99 211.45 219.34 227.82 .

Monthly 427.96 442.22 460.66 477.84 496.32 _

Annual 5,135.52 5,306.64 5,527.92 5,734.08 5,955.84 -

17 Biweekly 219.34 227.82 238.92 _ .

Monthly 477.84 496.32 520.50 _ _ .

Annual 5,734.08 5,955.84 6,246.00 - - -

18 Biweekly 213.88 224.07 234.14 244.69 _ .

Monthly 465.96 488.16 510.10 533.08 _ _

Annual 5,591.52 5,857.92 6,121.20 6,396.96 - -

19 Biweekly 224.07 234.14 244.69 _ .

Monthly 488.16 510.10 533.08 _ _ .

Annual 5,857.92 6,121.20 6,396.96 - - -

20 Biweekly 234.14 244.69 256.26 _ _ .

Monthly 510.10 533.08 558.28 _ _ _

Annual 6,121.20 6,396.96 6,699.36 - - -

21 Biweekly 244.69 256.26 267.81 _ _ _

Monthly 533.08 558.28 583.44 - . .

Annual 6,396.96 6,699.36 7,001.28 - - -

22 Biweekly 234.14 244.69 255.09 265.30 276.02 .

Monthly 510.10 533.08 555.74 577.98 601.33

Arnual 6,121.20 6,396.96 6,668.88 6,935.76 7,215.96 -

23 Biweekly 252.17 263.52 275.43 287.77 _ _

Monthly 549.38 574.10 600.04 626.93 . _

Annual 6,592.56

___________________ i

6,889.20 7,200.48 7,523.16

'

"

See footnote at end of table.

77

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 26. 1960 salary rates, all city employees, Milwaukee^— Continued

Pay

range

Interval

Biweekly, monthly, and annual salary rates

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6

24 Biweekly $276.02 $287.77 $299.11 $311.38 $324.12

Monthly 601.33 626.93 651.64 678.36 706.12 -

Annual 7,215.96 7,523.16 7,819.68 8.1A0.32 8,473.44 -

25 Biweekly 325.99 339.28 354.20 ! 368.29 . .

Monthly 710.20 739.15 771.64 1 802.34 - -

Annual 8,522.40 8,869.80 9,259.68 | 9,628.08 *

26 Biweekly 354.20 368.29 382.39 396.17 409.73 .

Monthly 771.64 802.34 833.06 863.09 892.62 -

Annual 9,259.68 9,628.08 9,996.72 10,357.08 10,7]1.44 "

27 Biweekly 382.39 396.17 409.73 423.29 436.84

Monthly 833.06 863.09 892.62 922.16 951.68 -

Annual 9,996.72 10,357.08 10,711.44 11,065.92 11,420.16 '

28 Biweekly 409.73 423.29 436.84 450.40 463.96 -

Monthly 892.62 922.16 951.68 981.22 1,010.77 -

Annual 10,711.44 11,065.92 11,420.16 11,774.64 12,129.24

29 Biweekly 436.84 450.40 463.96 477.77 491.07 .

Monthly 951.68 981.22 1,010.77 1,040.86 1,069.83 -

Annual 11,420.16 11,774.64 12,129.24 12,490.32 12,837.96 -

30 Biweekly 463.96 477.77 491.07 504.62 518.18 -

Monthly 1,010.77 1,040.86 1,069.83 1,099.35 1,128.89 -

Annual 12,129.24 12,490.32 12,837.96 13,192.20 13,546.68 *

31 Biweekly 504.62 518.18 545.29 558.58 - -

Monthly 1,099.35 1,128.89 1,187.96 1,216.91 - -

Arnual 13,192.20 13,546.68 14,255.52 14,602.92 - '

32 Biweekly 541.07 566.88 592.68 618.49 - -

Monthly 1,178.76 1,234.98 1,291.20 1,347.42 - -

Annual 14,145.12 14,819.76 15,494.40 16,169.04 “ '

33 Biweekly 585.22 612.33 639.92 _ - -

Monthly 1,274.94 1,334.00 1,394.11 - - -

Annual 15,299.28 16,008.00 16,729.32

In 1960 there was a single pay plan that covered nearly all city employees, including all employees of the

Fire and Police Departments. Pay ranges 1, 4, 9, 13, 18, 22, and 24 included clerical, administrative,

technical, and professional classes. The remaining pay ranges, up through pay range 23, contained trades,

labor, custodial, and public safety jobs. Pay ranges 25 through 33 included management positions, which

did not receive additional pay or compensatory time off for overtime worked.

City employees are paid biweekly.

Classes included in pay range 1 were Blueprint Trimmer, Clerk I, Clerk Stenographer I, Clerk Typist I,

Keypunch Operator I,and Library Aide I.

Classes included in pay range 2 were Bindery Sewer I, Custodial Worker I, Elevator Operator 1, and

Laundry Worker 1.

Classes included in pay range 33 were Commissioner of Health and Commissioner of Public Works.

Classes included in pay range 32 were Attorney V, Chief Engineer-Fire Department, Chief of Police,

City Engineer, Deputy City Attorney, Deputy Commissioner of Public Works, Municipal Port Director,

and Tax Commissioner.

78

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 27. 1961-67 salary rates (Biweekly), all city employees, Milwaukee

Pay

range

Year

Biweekly salary rates

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 1961 $690.41 | $724.93 i $759.45 $793.97 $828.49

1962 690.41 ! 724.93 759.45 793.97 828.49 -

1963 724.93 1 759.45 793.97 828.49 863.01 -

1964 774.64 780.10 815.56 851.02 886.48 -

1965 769.08 805.70 842.33 878.95 915.57 -

1966 792.15 829.87 867.60 905.32 943.04 -

1967 815.91 854.77 893.63 932.48 971.33 -

2 1961 607.56 635.18 662.79 690.41 724.93 _

1962 607.56 635.18 662.79 690.41 724.93 -

1963 635.18 662.79 690.41 724.93 759.45 -

1964 652.44 680.81 709.18 744.64 780.10 t

1965 673.86 703.16 732.46 769.08 805.70 -

1966 694.08 742.25 754.43 792.15 829.87 -

1967 714.90 745.98 777.06 815.91 854.77 -

3 1961 529.32 552.33 579.95 607.56 635.18 .

1962 529.32 552.33 579.95 607.56 635.18 -

1963 552.33 579.95 607.56 635.18 662.79 -

1964 567.34 595.71 624.08 652.44 680.81 -

1965 585.96 615.26 644.56 673.86 703.16 -

1966. 603.54 633.72 663.90 694.08 724.25 -

1967 621.65 652.73 683.82 714.90 745.98 -

4 1961 483.29 506.30 529.32 552.33 579.95 .

1962 483.29 506.30 529.32 552.33 579.95 -

1963 506.30 529.32 552.33 579.95 607.56 -

1964 520.07 543.70 567.34 595.71 624.08 -

1965 537.14 561.55 585.96 615.26 644.56 -

1966 553.25 578.40 603.54 633.72 663.90 -

1967 569.85 595.75 621.65 652.73 683.82

5 1961 439.56 460.27 483.29 506.30 529.32 .

1962 439.56 460.27 483.29 506.30 529.32 -

1963 460.27 483.29 506.30 529.32 552.33 -

1964 472.79 496.43 520.07 543.70 567.34 -

1965 488.30 512.72 537.14 561.55 585.96 -

1966 502.95 528.10 553.25 578.40 603.54 -

1967 518.04 543.94 569.85 595.75 621.65 -

6 1961 418.85 439.56 460.27 483.29 506.30 _

1962 418.85 439.56 460.27 483.29 506.30 -

1963 439.56 460.27 483.29 506.30 529.32 -

1964 451.51 472.79 496.43 520.07 543.70 -

1965 466.33 488.30 512.72 537.14 561.55 -

1966 480.32 502.95 528.10 553.25 578.40 -

1967 494.73 518.04 543.94 569.85 595.75 -

7 1961 382.03 400.44 418.85 439.56 460.27 _

1962 382.03 400.44 418.85 439.56 460.27 -

1963 400.44 418.85 439.56 460.27 483.29 -

1964 411.32 430.24 451.51 472.79 496.43 -

1965 424.82 444.36 466.33 488.30 512.72 -

1966 437.56 457.69 480.32 502.95 528.10 -

1967 450.69 471.42 494.73 518.04 543.94 -

8 1961 347.51 363.62 382.03 400.44 418.85 _

1962 347.51 363.62 382.03 400.44 418.85 -

1963 363.62 382.03 400.44 418.85 439.56 -

1964 373.50 392.41 411.32 430.24 451.51 -

1965 385.76 405.29 424.82 444.36 466.33 -

1966 397.33 417.45 437.56 457.69 480.32 -

1967 409.25 429.97 450.69 471.42 494.73 -

9 1961 317.59 331.40 347.51 363.62 382.03 _

1962 317.59 331.40 347.51 363.62 382.03 -

1963 331.40 347.51 363.62 382.03 400.44 -

1964 340.41 356.95 373.50 392.41 411.32 -

1965 351.58 368.67 385.76 405.29 424.82 -

1966 362.13 379.73 397.33 417.45 437.56 -

1967 372.99 391.12 409.25 429.97 450.69 -

10 1961 303.78 317.59 331.40 347.51 363.62 _

1962 303.78 317.59 331.40 347.51 363.62 -

1963 317.59 331.40 347.51 363.62 382.03 -

1964 326.22 340.41 356.95 373.50 392.41 -

1965 336.93 351.58 368.67 385.76 405.29 -

1966 347.04 362.13 379.73 397.33 417.45 -

1967 357.45 372.99 391.12 409.25 429.97 '

11 1961 265.12 277.08 289.97 303.78 317.59 _

1962 265.12 277.08 289.97 303.78 317.59 -

1963 277.08 289.97 303.78 317.59 331.40 -

1964 284.62 297.86 312.04 326.22 340.41 -

1965 293.96 307.63 322.28 336.93 351.58 -

1966 302.78 316.86 331.95 347.04 362.13 -

1967 311.86 326.37 341.91 357.45 372.59

See footnote at end of table.

79

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 27. 1961-67 salary rates (Biweekly), all city employees, Milwaukee1— Continued

Biweekly salary rates

Pay

range

Year

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6

12 1961 $253.61 $265.12 $277.08 $289.97 $303.78 _

1962 253.61 265.12 277.08 289.97 303.78 -

1963 265.12 277.08 289.97 303.78 317.59 -

1964 272.33 284.62 297.86 312.04 326.22 -

1965 281.26 293.96 307.63 322.28 336.93 -

1966 289.70 302.78 316.86 331.95 347.04 -

1967 298.39 311.86 326.37 341.91 357.45 "

13 1961 242.56 253.61 265.12 277.08 289.97

1962 242.56 253.61 265.12 277.08 289.97 _

1963 253.61 265.12 277.08 289.97 303.. 78 -

1964 260.51 272.33 284.62 297.86 312.04 -

1965 269.05 281.26 293.96 307.63 322.28 _

1966 277.12 289.70 302.78 316.86 331.95 _

1967 285.43 298.39 311.86 326.37 341.91 '

14 1961 232.44 242.56 253.61 265.12 277.08 _

1962 232.44 242.56 253.61 265.12 277.08 _

1963 242.56 253.61 265.12 277.08 289.97 -

1964 249.16 260.51 272.33 284.62 297.86 -

1965 257.34 269.05 281.26 293.96 307.63 _

1966 265.34 277.12 289.70 302.78 316.86 -

1967 273.34 285.43 298.39 311.86 326.37 -

15 1961 222.77 232.44 242.56 253.61 265.12

1962 222.77 232.44 242.56 253.61 265.12 _

1963 232.44 242.56 253.61 265.12 277.08 -

1964 238.76 249.16 260.51 272.33 284.62 _

1965 246.59 257.34 269.05 281.26 293.96 -

1966 254.59 265.34 277.12 289.70 302.78 -

1967 262.59 273.34 285.43 298.39 311.86 -

16 1961 213.57 222.77 232.44 242.56 253.61 _

1962 213.57 222.77 232.44 242.56 253.61 _

1963 222.77 232.44 242.56 253.61 265.12 _

1964 228.83 238.76 249.16 260.51 272.33 _

1965 236.34 246.59 257.34 269.05 281.26 _

1966 244.34 254.59 265.34 277.12 289.70 .

1967 252.34 262.59 273.34 285.43 298.39 -

17 1961 204.82 213.57 222.77 232.44 242.56 _

1962 204.82 213.57 222.77 232.44 242.56 .

1963 213.57 222.77 232.44 242.56 253.61 _

1964 219.37 228.83 238.76 249.16 260.51 _

1965 226.57 236.34 246.59 257.34 269.05 _

1966 234.57 244.34 254.59 265.34 277.12 -

1967 242.57 252.34 262.59 273.34 285.43 -

18 1961 196.54 204.82 213.57 222.77 232.44 _

1962 196.54 204.82 213.57 222.77 232.44 -

1963 204.82 213.57 222.77 232.44 242.56 -

1964 210.39 219.37 228.83 238.76 249.16 -

1965 217.30 226.57 236.34 246.59 257.34 -

1966 225.30 234.57 244.34 254.59 265.34 -

1967 233.30 242.57 252.34 262.59 273.34 -

19 1961 189.17 196.54 204.82 213.57 222.77 _

1962 189.17 196.54 204.82 213.57 222.77 -

1963 196.54 204.82 213.57 222.77 232.44 -

1964 201.88 210.39 219.37 228.83 238.76 -

1965 208.50 217.30 226.57 236.34 246.59 -

1966 216.50 225.30 234.57 244.34 254.59 -

1967 224.50 233.30 242.57 252.34 262.59 -

20 1961 180.89 189.17 196.54 204.82 213.57 _

1962 180.89 189.17 196.54 204.82 213.57 -

1963 189.17 196.54 204.82 213.57 222.77 -

1964 194.32 201.88 210.39 219.37 228.83 -

1965 200.69 208.50 217.30 226.57 236.34 _

1966 208.69 216.50 225.30 234.57 244.34 -

1967 216.69 224.50 233.30 242.57 252.34 -

21 1961 173.52 180.89 189.17 196.54 204.82 _

1962 173.52 180.89 189.17 196.54 204.82 .

1963 180.89 189.17 196.54 204.82 213.57 -

1964 185.81 194.32 201.88 210.39 219.37 -

1965 192.07 200.69 208.50 217.30 226.57 -

1966 200.07 208.69 216.50 225.30 234.57 -

1967 208.07 216.69 224.50 233.30 242.57 -

22 1961 166.16 173.52 180.89 189.17 196.54 .

1962 166.16 173.52 180.89 189.17 196.54 -

1963 173.52 180.89 189.17 196.54 204.82 -

1964 178.24 185.81 194.32 201.88 210.39 -

1965 184.48 192.07 200.69 208.50 217.30 -

1966 192.48 200.07 208.69 216.50 225.30 -

1967 200.48 208.07 216.69 224.50 233.30 ~

See footnote at end of table.

80

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 27. 1961-67 salary rates (Biweekly), all city employees. Milwaukee1— Continued

Biweekly salary rates

Pay

range

Yeai

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6

23 1961 $158.79 $166.16 $173.52 $180.89 $189.17 .

1962 158.79 166.16 173.52 180.89 189.17 -

1963 158.79 166.16 173.52 180.89 189.17 $ 196.54

1964 163.11 170.68 178.24 185.81 194.32 201.88

1965 169.31 176.90 184.48 192.07 200.69 208.50

1966 177.31 184.90 192.48 200.07 208.69 216.50

1967 185.31 192.90 200.48 208.07 216.69 224.50

24 1961 152.35 158.79 166.16 173.52 180.89 .

1962 152.35 158.79 166.16 173.52 180.89 -

1963 158.79 166.16 173.52 180.89 189.17 -

1964 163.11 170.68 178.24 185.81 194.32 -

1965 169.31 176.90 184.48 192.07 200.69 -

1966 177.31 184.90 192.48 200.07 208.69 -

1967 185.31 192.90 200.48 208.07 216.69 -

25 1961 139.46 145.91 152.35 158.79 166.16 .

1962 139.46 145.91 152.35 158.79 166.16 -

1963 145.91 152.35 158.79 166.16 173.52 -

1964 149.87 156.49 163.11 170.68 178.24 -

1965 156.04 162.67 169.31 176.90 184.48 -

1966 164.04 170.67 177.31 184.90 192.48 -

1967 172.04 178.67 185.31 192.90 200.48

26 1961 133.48 139.46 145.91 152.35 158.79 _

1962 133.48 139.46 145.91 152.35 158.79 -

1963 133.48 139.46 145.91 152.35 158.79 166.16

1964 137.11 143.25 149.87 156.49 163.11 170.68

1965 143.24 149.40 156.04 162.67 169.31 176.90

1966 151.24 157.40 164.04 170.67 177.31 184.90

1967 159.24 165.40 172.04 178.67 185.31 192.90

27 1961 127.96 133.48 139.46 145.91 152.35

1962 127.96 133.48 139.46 145.91 152.35 -

1963 127.96 133.48 139.46 145.91 152.35 158.79

1964 131.43 137.11 143.25 149.87 156.49 163.11

1965 137.55 143.24 149.40 156.04 162.67 169.31

1966 145.55 151.24 157.40 164.04 170.67 177.31

1967 153.35 159.24 165.40 172.04 178.67 185.31

1 In 1961, a co m p le te ly new pay plan in corp ora tin g 27 pay ranges was adopted. This pay plan rem ain ed in effect until 1968. 

O rigin a lly it co v e re d n ea rly all e m p lo y e e s, including p o lice and fire departm ent p erson n el. E xcluded w ere prevailin g wage 

e m p lo y e e s, "e x e m p t" e m p lo y e e s, and em ploy ees o f b oards and co m m issio n s.

P ay ranges 1 through 1 1 in clu ded m anagem ent position s m o st o f w hich did not re ce iv e additional pay o r com p en sa tory tim e 

o ff fo r o v ertim e w orked.

In 1965, a new sep era te pay plan fo r p o lice s e r v ice p erson n el w as esta blish ed w hich contain ed 15 pay ran ges co v e rin g all 

ranks from P o lice M atron up to an including the C h ief o f P o lice . (See table 37. )

In 1967, a new separate pay plan fo r fire person n el w as esta blish ed w hich contain ed 5 pay ranges cov erin g ranks o f F irefig h ter 

through F ire Captain Ranks above F ire Captian w ere in clu ded in the gen eral pay sch edu le. (See table 38. )

C la s se s in clu ded in pay range 1 w ere C om m issio n e r o f Health, C o m m issio n e r o f P u blic W ork s, and D ire cto r o f C ity D evelopm ent.

C la sse s in clu ded in pay ranges 2 w ere C h ief E n g in e e r-F ire D epartm ent, C hief o f P o lic e . C ity E n gin eer, D tputy CommL- sion er 

of P u blic W ork s, M un icipal P o rt D ir e cto r, and T ax C o m m is s io n e r. In 1965, C hief o f P o lice w as assign ed to the new separate 

pay plan cov erin g a ll ranks of p o lice person n el.

C la sse s in clu ded in pay range 27 w ere C le rk I, C lerk S tenographer I, C lerk T yp ist I, Key Punch O perator I, and l ib ra ry 

Aide I.

C la sse s in clu ded in pay range 26 w ere B in dery Sew er I, C ustodial W ork er I, E leva tor O perator I, and Laundry W ork er I.

81

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 28. 1961-67 salary rates (Monthly), all city employees, Milwaukee1

Monthly salary rates

Pay Step rates

range Year

1 2

! 3 4 5 6

1 1961 $1,500.00 $1,575.00 $1,650.00 $1,725.00 $1,800.00

1962 1,500.00 1,575.00 1,650.00 1,725.00 1.8C0.00 -

1963 1,575.00 1,650.00 1,725.00 1,800.00 1,875.00 -

1964 1,622.25 1,699.50 1,776.75 1,854.00 1,931.25 -

1965 1,670.92 1,750.49 1,830.05 1,909.62 1,989.19 -

1966 1,721.04 1,802.99 1,884.96 1,966.92 2,048.87 -

1967 1,772.66 1,857.09 1,941.52 2,025.92 2,110.33 -

2 1961 1,320.00 1,380.00 1,440.00 1,500.00 1,575.00 _

1962 1,320.00 1,380.00 1,440.00 1,500.00 1,575.00 -

1963 1,380.00 1,440.00 1,500.00 1,575.00 1,650.00 -

1964 1,421.40 1,483.20 1,545.00 1,622.25 1,699.50 -

1965 1,464.04 1,527.70 1,591.35 1,670.92 1,750.49 -

1966 1,507.97 1,573.52 1,639.09 1,721.04 1,802.99 -

1967 1,553.21 1,620.73 1,688.26 1,722.66 1,857.09 -

3 1961 1,150.00 1,200.00 1,260.00 1,320.00 1,380.00 _

1962 1,150.00 1,200.00 1,260.00 1,320.00 1,380.00 -

1963 1,200.00 1,260.00 1,320.00 1,380.00 1,440.00 -

1964 1,236.00 1,297.80 1,359.60 1,421.40 1,483.20 -

1965 1,273.08 1,336.73 1,400.39 1,464.04 1,527.70 -

1966 1,311.26 1,376.83 1,442.40 1,507.97 1,573.52 -

1967 1,350.61 1,418.13 1,485.68 1,553.21 1,620.73 -

1961 1,050.00 1,100.00 1,150.00 1,200.00 1,260.00 _

1962 1,050.00 1,100.00 1,150.00 1,200.00 1,260.00 -

1963 1,100.00 1,150.00 1,200.00 1,260.00 1,320.00 -

1964 1,133.00 1,184.50 1,236.00 1,297.80 1,359.60 -

1965 1,166.99 1,220.04 1,273.08 1,336.73 1,400.39 -

1966 1,202.00 1,256.64 1,311.26 1,376.83 1,442.40 -

1967 1,238.07 1,294.34 1,350.61 1,418.13 1,484.68 -

5 1961 955.00 1,000.00 1,050.00 1,100.00 1,150.00 _

1962 955.00 1,000.00 1,050.00 1,100.00 1,150.00 -

1963 1,000.00 1,050.00 1,100.00 1,150.00 1,200.00 -

1964 1,030.00 1,081.50 1,133.00 1,184.50 1,236.00 -

1965 1,060.90 1,113.95 1,166.99 1,220.04 1,273.08 -

1966 1,092.72 1,147.36 1,202.00 1,256.64 1,311.26 -

1967 1,125.50 1,181.77 1,238.07 1,294.34 1,350.61 -

6 1961 910.00 955.00 1,000.00 1,050.00 1,100.00 _

1962 910.00 955.00 1,000.00 1,050.00 1,100.00 -

1963 955.00 1,000.00 1,050.00 1,100.00 1,150.00 -

1964 983.65 1,030.00 1,081.00 1,133.00 1,184.50 -

1965 1,013.16 1,060.90 1,113.95 1,166.99 1,220.04 -

1966 1,043.55 1,092.72 1,147.36 1,202.00 1,256.64 -

1967 1,074.86 1,125.50 1,181.77 1,238.07 1,294.34 -

1961 830.00 870.00 910.00 955.00 1,000.00

1962 830.00 870.00 910.00 955.00 1,000.00 -

1963 870.00 910.00 955.00 1,000.00 1,050.00 -

1964 896.00 937.30 983.65 1,030.00 1,081.50 -

1965 922.98 965.42 1,013.16 1,060.90 1,113.95 -

1966 950.65 994.39 1,043.55 1,092.72 1,147.36 -

1967 979.18 1,024.22 1,074.86 1,125.50 1,181.77 -

8 1961 755.00 790.00 830.00 870.00 910.00 .

1962 755.00 790.00 830.00 870.00 910.00 -

1963 790.00 830.00 870.00 910.00 955.00 -

1964 813.70 854.90 896.10 937.30 983.65 -

1965 838.11 880.55 922.98 965.42 1,013.16 -

1966 863.25 906.96 950.65 994.39 1,043.55 -

1967 889.14 934.16 979.18 1,024.22 1,074.86 -

9 1961 690.00 720.00 755.00 790.00 830.00 .

1962 690.00 720.00 755.00 790.00 830.00 -

1963 720.00 755.00 790.00 830.00 870.00 -

1964 741.60 777.65 813.70 854.90 896.10 -

1965 763.85 800.98 838.11 880.55 922.98 -

1966 786.77 825.01 863.25 906.96 950.65 -

1967 810.37 849.76 889.14 934.16 979.18 -

10 1961 660.00 690.00 720.00 755.00 790.00 .

1962 660.00 690.00 720.00 755.00 790.00 -

1963 690.00 720.00 755.00 790.00 830.00 -

1964 710.70 741.60 777.65 813.70 854.90 -

1965 732.02 763.85 800.98 838.11 880.55 -

1966 753.99 786.77 825.01 863.25 906.96 -

1967 776.60. 810.37 849.76 889.14 934.16

11 1961 576.00 602.00 630.00 660.00 690.00 .

1962 576.00 602.00 630.00 660.00 690.00 -

1963 602.00 630.00 660.00 690.00 720.00 -

1964 620.06 648.90 679.80 710.70 741.60 -

1965 638.66 668.37 700.19 732.02 763.85 -

1966 657.83 688.42 721.20 753.99 786.77 -

1967 677.55 709.08 742.84 776.60 810.37

See footnote at end o f table.

82

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 28. 1961-67 salary rates (Monthly), all city employees, Milwaukee1— Continued

Monthly salary rates

Pay Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6

12 1961 $551.00 $576.00 $602.00 $630.00 $660.00

1962 551.00 576.00 602.00 630.00 660.00 -

1963 576.00 ! 602.00 630.00 660.00 690.00 -

1964 593.28 : 620.06 648.90 679.80 710.70 _

1965 611.08 ; 638.66 668.37 700.19 732.02 -

1966 629.41 657.83 688.42 721.20 753.99 -

1967 648.29 677.55 709.08 742.84 776.60 -

13 1961 527.00 : 551.00 576.00 602.00 630.00 _

1962 527.00 [ 551.00 576.00 602.00 630.00 -

1963 551.00 1 576.00 602.00 630.00 660.00 -

1964 567.53 593.28 620.06 648.90 679.80 -

1965 584.56 ! 611.08 638.66 668.37 700.19 -

1966 602.08 1 629.41 657.83 688.42 721.20 -

1967 620.13 j 648.29 677.55 709.08 742.84 -

14 1961 505.00 | 527.00 551.00 ' 576.00 602.00 _

1962 505.00 ! 527.00 551.00 > 576.00 602.00 -

1963 527.00 j 551.00 576.00 602.00 630.00 -

1964 542.81 1 567.53 593.28 620.06 648.90 -

1965 559.09 } 584.56 611.08 638.66 668.37 -

1966 576.48 ! 602.08 629.41 657.83 688.42 -

1967 593.86 i 620.13 648.29 677.55 709.08 -

15 1961 484.00 | 505.00 527.00 551.00 576.00 _

1962 484.00 505.00 527.00 551.00 576.00 -

1963 505.00 } 527.00 551.00 576.00 602.00 -

1964 520.15 542.81 567.53 593.28 620.06 -

1965 535.75 559.09 584.56 611.08 638.66 -

1966 553.13 576.48 602.08 629.41 657.83 -

1967 570.51 593.86 620.13 648.29 677.55 -

16 1961 464.00 484.00 505.00 j 527.00 551.00

1962 464.00 484.00 505.00 | 527.00 551.00 |

1963 484.00 505.00 527.00 1 551.00 576.00

1964 498.52 520.15 542.81 567.53 593.28 j

1965 I 513.48 535.75 559.09 584.56 611.08 i

1966 i 530.86 553.13 576.48 j 602.08 629.41

1967 548.24 570.51 593.86 1 620.13 648.29

1

l I

i

17 1961 445.00 464.00 484.00 » 505.00

!

527.00

1962 445.00 464.00 484.00 505.00 527.00 !

1963 464.00 484.00 505.00 527.00 551.00 |

1964 477.92 498.52 520.15 542.81 567.53 j -

1965 492.26 513.48 535.75 559.09 584.56 -

1966 509.63 530.86 553.13 !! 576.48 602.08 ; -

1967 527.01 548.24 570.51 !! 593.86 620.13 i -

18 1961 427.00 445.00 464.00 484.00 505.00 _

1962 427.00 445.00 464.00 484.00 505.00 : .

1963 445.00 464.00 484.00 505.00 527.00 | -

1964 458.35 477.92 498.52 520.15 542.81 -

1965 472.10 492.26 513.48 535.75 559.09 -

1966 489.49 509.63 530.86 553.13 576.48 | -

1967 506.87 527.01 548.24 570.51 j 593.86

j

-

19 1961 411.00 427.00 445.00 464.00 ! 484.00 ! _

1962 411.00 427.00 445.00 464.00 ! 484.00 j -

1963 427.00 445.00 464.00 484.00 » 505.00 ' -

1964 439.81 458.35 477.92 498.52 ' 520.15 • -

1965 453.00 472.10 492.26 513.48 535.75 j -

1966 470.37 489.49 509.63 530.86 553.13 -

1967 487.75 506.87 527.01 548.24 570.51 -

20 1961 393.00 411.00 427.00 445.00 464.00 _

1962 393.00 411.00 427.00 445.00 464.00 -

1963 411.00 427.00 445.00 464.00 484.00 ! -

1964 423.33 439.81 458.35 477.92 498.52 -

1965 436.03 453.00 472.10 492.26 513.48 -

1966 453.40 470.37 489.49 509.63 530.86 -

1967 470.79 487.75 | 506.87 527.01 548.24 -

21 1961

1

377.00 ;

1

393.00 411.00 427.00 445.00 _

1962 377.00 393.00 411.00 427.00 445.00 -

1963 393.00 1 411.00 427.00 445.00 464.00 -

1964 404.79 423.33 439.81 458.35 477.92 -

1965 417.29 436.03 453.00 472.10 492.26 -

1966 434.68 453.40 470.37 489.49 509.63 -

1967 452.06 470.79 487.75 506.87 527.01 -

22 1961 361.00 j 377.00 393.00 411.00 f 427.00 | _

1962 361.00 377.00 393.00 411.00 j 427.00 -

1963 377.00 393.00 411.00 427.00 445.00 -

1964 388.31 1 404.79 423.33 439.81 | 458.35 -

1965 400.81 { 417.29 436.03 453.00 i 472.10 -

1966 418.19 ; 434.68 453.40 470.37 j 489.49 -

1967 435.57 j 452.06 470.79 487.75 506.87 -

See footnote at end of table.

83

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 28. 1961-67 salary rates, (Monthly), all city employees, Milwaukee1— Continued!

Monthly salary rates

Pay Step rates

range Year

1 2 3 4 !! 5 6

23 1961 $345.00 $361.00 $377.00 $393.00

1

$411.00

1962 345.00 361.00 377.00 393.00 411.00 -

1963 345.00 361.00 377.00 393.00 411.00 $427.00

1964 355.35 371.83 388.31 404.79 423.33 439.81

1965 367.85 384.33 400.81 417.29 436.03 453.00

1966 385.23 401.72 418.19 434.68 453.40 470.37

1967 402.61 419.10 435.57 452.06 470.79 487.75

24 1961 331.00 345.00 361.00 377,00 393.00 .

1962 331.00 345.00 361.00 377.00 393.00 -

1963 345.00 361.00 377.00 393.00 411.00 _

1964 355.35 371.83 388.31 404.79 423.33 -

1965 367.85 384.33 400.81 417.29 436.03 -

1966 385.23 401.72 418.19 434.68 453.40 -

1967 402.61 419.10 435.57 452.06 470.79 -

25 1961 303.00 317.00 331.00 345.00 361.00 _

1962 303.00 317.00 331.00 345.00 361.00 -

1963 317.00 331.00 345.00 361.00 377.00 -

19.64 326.51 340.93 355.35 371.83 388.31 -

1965 339.01 353.43 367.85 384.33 400.81 -

1966 356.40 370.80 385.23 401.72 418.19 -

1967 373.78 388.18 402.61 419.10 435.57 -

26 1961 290.00 303.00 317.00 331.00 345.00 _

1962 290.00 303.00 317.00 331.00 345.00 -

1963 290.00 303.00 317.00 331.00 345.00 361.00

1964 298.70 312.09 326.51 340.93 355.35 371.83

1965 311.20 324.59 339.01 353.43 367.85 384.33

1966 328.59 341.97 356.40 370.80 385.23 401.72

1967 345.97 359.35 373.78 388.18 402.61 419.10

27 1961 278.00 290.00 303.00 317.00 331.00 _

1962 278.00 290.00 303.00 317.00 331.00 -

1963 278.00 290.00 303.00 317.00 331.00 345.00

1964 286.34 298.70 312.09 326.51 340.93 355.35

1965 298.84 311.20 324.59 339.01 353.43 367.85

1966 316.23 328.59 341.97 356.40 370.80 385.23

1967 333.61 345.97 359.35 373.78 388.18 402.61

1 See footnote 1, table 27.

84

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 29. 1961-67 salary rates (Annual), all city employees, Milwaukee1

1 Annual saLary rates

Pay Step rates

rai'ge

Year

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 1961 $18,000.00 $18,900.00 $19,800.00 $20,700.00 $21,600.00

1962 18,000.00 18,900.00 19,800.00 20,700.00 21,600.00 .

1963 18,900.00 19,800.00 20,700.00 21,600.00 22,500.00 _

1964 19,467.00 20,394.00 21,321.00 22,248.00 23,175.00 -

1965 20,051.01 21,005.82 21,960.63 22,915.44- 23,870.25 -

1966 20,652.48 21,635.90 22,619.57 23,602.99 24,586.40 -

1967 21,271.94 22,285.08 23,298.21 24,311.09 25,323.96 -

2 1961 15,840.00 16,560.00 17,280.00 18,000.00 18,900.00

1962 15,840.00 16,560.00 17,280.00 18,000.00 18,900.00 -

1963 16,560.00 17,280.00 18,000.00 18,900.00 19,800.00 -

1964 17,056.80 17,798.40 18,540.00 19,467.00 20,394.00 -

1965 17,568.50 18,332.35 19,096.20 20,051.01 21,005.82 -

1966 18,095.66 18,882.23 19,669.07 20,652.48 21,635.90 -

1967 18,638.46 19,448.76 20,259.06 21,271.94 22,285.08 -

1961 13,800.00 14,400.00 15,120.00 15,840.00 16,560.00 _

1962 13,800.00 14,400.00 15,120.00 15,840.00 16,560.00 -

1963 14,400.00 15,120.00 15,840.00 16,560.00 17,280.00 -

1964 14,832.00 15,573.60 16,315.20 17,056.80 17,798.40 -

1965 15,276.96 16,040.81 16,804.66 17,568.50 18,332.35 -

1966 15,735.15 16,521.99 17,308.82 18,095.66 18,882.23 -

1967 16,207.30 17,017.60 17,828.16 18,638.46 19,448.76 -

4 1961 12,600.00 13,200.00 13,800.00 14,400.00 15,120.00 .

1962 12,600.00 13,200.00 13,800.00 14,400.00 15,120.00 -

1963 13,200.00 13,800.00 14,400.00 15,120.00 15,840.00 -

1964 13,596.00 14,214.00 14,832.00 15,573.60 16,315.20 -

1965 14,003.88 14,640.42 15,276.96 16,040.81 16,804.66 -

1966 14,424.02 15,079.71 15,735.15 16,521.99 17,308.82 -

1967 14,856.80 15,532.05 16,207.30 17,017.60 17,828.16 -

5 1961 11,460.00 12,000.00 12,600.00 13,200.00 13,800.00 .

1962 11,460.00 12,000.00 12,600.00 13,200.00 13,800.00 -

1963 12,000.00 12,600.00 13,200.00 13,800.00 14,400.00 -

1964 12,360.00 12,978.00 13,596.00 14,214.00 14,832.00 -

1965 12,730.80 13,367.34 14,003.88 14,640.42 15,276.96 -

1966 13,112.63 13,768.32 14,424.02 15,079.71 15,735.15 -

1967 13,506.04 14,181.29 14,856.80 15,532.05 16,207.30 -

6 1961 10,920.00 11,460.00 12,000.00 12,600.00 13,200.00 .

1962 10,920.00 11,460.00 12,000.00 12,600.00 13,200.00 -

1963 11,460.00 12,000.00 12,600.00 13,200.00 13,800.00 -

1964 11,803.80 12,360.00 12,978.00 13,596.00 14,214.00 -

1965 12,157.91 12,730.80 13,367.34 14,003.88 14,640.42 -

1966 12,522.63 13,112.63 13,768.32 14,424.02 15,079.71 -

1967 12,898.32 13,506.04 14,181.29 14,856.80 15,532.05 -

1961 9,960.00 10,440.00 10,920.00 11,460.00 12,000.00 _

1962 9,960.00 10,440.00 10,920.00 11,460.00 12,000.00 -

1963 10,440.00 10,920.00 11,460.00 12,000.00 12,600.00 -

1964 10,753.20 11,247.60 11,803.80 12,360.00 12,978.00 -

1965 11,075.80 11,585.03 12,157.91 12,730.80 13,367.34 -

1966 11,407.81 11,932.63 12,522.63 13,112.63 13,768.32 -

1967 11,750.13 12,290.59 12,898.32 13,506.04 14,181.29 -

8 1961 9,060.00 9,480.00 9,960.00 10,440.00 10,920.00 _

1962 9,060.00 9,480.00 9,960.00 10,440.00 10,920.00 -

1963 9,480.00 9,960.00 10,440.00 10,920.00 11,460.00 -

1964 9,764.40 10,258.80 10,753.20 11,247.60 11,803.80 -

1965 10,057.33 10,566.56 11,075.80 11,585.03 12,157.91 -

1966 10,358.96 10,883.52 11,407.81 11,932.63 12,522.63 -

1967 10,669.73 11,209.93 11,750.13 12,290.59 12,898.32 -

9 1961 8,280.00 8,640.00 9,060.00 9,480.00 9,960.00 _

1962 8,280.00 8,640.00 9,060.00 9,480.00 9,960.00 -

1963 8,640.00 9,060.00 9,480.00 9,960.00 10,440.00 -

1964 8,899.20 9,331.80 9,764.40 10,258.80 10,753.20 -

1965 9,166.18 9,611.75 10,057.33 10,566.56 11,075.80 -

1966 9,441.25 9,900.10 10,358.96 10,883.52 11,407.81 -

1967 9,724.38 10,197.06 10,669.73 11,209.93 11,750.13 -

10 1961 7,920.00 8,280.00 8,640.00 9,060.00 9,480.00 .

1962 7,920.00 8,280.00 8,640.00 9,060.00 9,480.00 -

1963 8,280.00 8,640.00 9,060.00 9,480.00 9,960.00 -

1964 8,528.40 8,899.20 9,331.80 9,764.40 10,258.80 -

1965 8,784.25 9,166.18 9,611.75 10,057.33 10,566.56 -

1966 9,047.83 9,441.25 9,900.10 10,358.96 10,883.52 -

1967 9,319.23 9,724.38 10,197.06 10,669.73 11,209.93 -

11 1961 6,912.00 7,224.00 7,560.00 7,920.00 8,280.00 .

1962 6,912.00 7,224.00 7,560.00 7,920.00 8,280.00 -

1963 7,224.00 7,560.00 7,920.00 8,280.00 8,640.00 -

1964 7,440.72 7,786.80 8,157.60 8,528.40 8,899.20 -

1965 7,663.94 8,020.40 8,402.33 8,784.25 9,166.18 -

1966 7,893.91 8,260.99 8,654.41 9,047.83 9,441.25 -

1967 8,130.64 8,508.93 8,914.08 9,319.23 9,724.38 -

See footnote at end o f table.

85

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 29. 1961-67 salary rates (Annual), all city employees, Milwaukee1—‘Continued

Annual salary rates

Pay

range

Year

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6

12 1961 $6,612.00 $6,912.00 $7,224.00 $7,560.00 $7,920.00

1962 6,612.00 6,912.00 7,224.00 7,560.00 7,920.00 -

1963 6,912.00 7,224.00 7,560.00 7,920.00 8,280.00 -

1964 7,119.36 7,440.72 7,786.80 8,157.60 8,528.40 -

1965 7,332.94 7,663.94 8,020.40 8,402.33 8,784.25 -

1966 7,552.89 7,893.91 8,260.99 5,654.41 9,047.83 -

1967 7,779.45 8,130.64 8,508.93 8,914.08 9,319.23 -

13 1961 6,324.00 6,612.00 6,912.00 7,224.00 7,560.00 _

1962 6,324.00 6,612.00 6,912.00 7,224.00 7,560.00 -

1963 6,612.00 6,912.00 7,224.00 7,560.00 7,920.00 -

1964 6,810.36 7,119.36 7,440.72 7,786.80 8,157.60 -

1965 7,014.67 7,332.94 7,663.94 8,020.40 8,402.33 -

1966 7,224.91 7,552.89 7,893.91 8,260.99 8,654.41 -

1967 7,441.57 7,779.45 8,130.64 8,508.93 8,914.08 -

14 1961 6,060.00 6,324.00 6,612.00 6,912.00 7,224.00 .

1962 6,060.00 6,324.00 6,612.00 6,912.00 7,224.00 -

1963 6,324.00 6,612.00 6,912.00 7,224.00 7,560.00 -

1964 6,513.72 6,810.36 7,119.36 7,440.72 7,786.80 -

1965 6,709.13 7,014.67 7,332.94 7,663.94 8,020.40 -

1966 6,917.79 7,224.91 7,552.89 7,893.91 8,260.99 -

1967 7,126.36 7,441.57 7,779.45 8,130.64 8,508.93 ”

15 1961 5,808.00 6,060.00 6,324.00 6,612.00 6,912.00 .

1962 5,808.00 6,060.00 6,324.00 6,612.00 6,912.00 -

1963 6,060.00 6,324.00 6,612.00 6,912.00 7,224.00 -

1964 6,241.80 6,513.72 6,810.36 7,119.36 7,440.72 -

1965 6,429.05 6,709.13 7,014.67 7,332.94 7,663.94 -

1966 6,637.53 6,917.79 7,224.91 7,552.89 7,893.91 -

1967 6,846.10 7,126.36 7,441.57 7,779.45 8,130.64 -

16 1961 5,568.00 5,808.00 6,060.00 6,324.00 6,612.00 .

1962 5,568.00 5,808.00 6,060.00 6,324.00 6,612.00 -

1963 5,808.00 6,060.00 6,324.00 6,612.00 6,912.00 -

1964 5,982.24 6,241.80 6,513.72 6,810.36 7,119.36 -

1965 6,161.71 6,429.05 6,709.13 7,014.67 7,332.94 -

1966 6,370.29 6,637.53 6,917.79 7,224.91 7,552.89 -

1967 6,578.86 6,846.10 7,126.36 7,441.57 7,779.45 -

17 1961 5,340.00 5,568.00 5,808.00 6,060.00 6,324.00 _

1962 5,340.00 5,568.00 5,808.00 6,060.00 6,324.00 -

1963 5.568.00 5,808.00 6,060.00 6,324.00 6,612.00 -

1964 5,735.04 5,982.24 6,241.80 6,513.72 6,810.36 -

1965 5,907.09 6,161.71 6,429.05 6,709.13 7,014.67 -

1966 6,115.58 6,370.29 6,637.53 6,917.79 7,224.91 -

1967 6,324.15 6,578.86 6,846.10 7,126.36 7,441.57 -

18 1961 5,124.00 5,340.00 5,568.00 5,808.00 6,060.00 -

1962 5,124.00 5,340.00 5,568.00 5,808.00 6,060.00 -

1963 5,340.00 5,568.00 5,808.00 6,060.00 6,324.00 -

1964 5,500.20 5,735.04 5,982.24 6,241.80 6,513.72 -

1965 5,665.21 5,907.09 6,161.71 6,429.05 6,709.13 -

1966 5,873.89 6,115.58 6,370.29 6,637.53 6,917.79 -

1967 6,082.46 6,324.15 6,578.86 6,846.10 7,126.36 -

19 1961 4,932.00 5,124.00 5,340.00 5,568.00 5,808.00 .

1962 4,932.00 5,124.00 5,340.00 5,568.00 5,808.00 -

1963 5,124.00 5,340.00 5,568.00 5,808.00 6,060.00 -

1964 5,277.72 5,500.20 5,735.04 5,982.24 6,241.80 -

1965 5,436.05 5,665.21 5,907.09 6,161.71 6,429.05 -

1966 5,644.46 5,873.89 6,115.58 6,370.29 6,637.53 -

1967 5,853.04 6,082.46 6,324.15 6,578.86 6,846.10 -

20 1961 4,716.00 4,932.00 5,124.00 5,340.00 5,568.00 .

1962 4,716.00 4,932.00 5,124.00 5,340.00 5,568.00 -

1963 4,932.00 5,124.00 5,340.00 5,568.00 5,808.00 -

1964 5,079.96 5,277.72 5,500.20 5,735.04 5,982.24 -

1965 5,232.36 5,436.05 5,665.21 5,907.09 6,161.71 -

1966 5,440.85 5,644.46 5,873.89 6,115.58 6,370.29 -

1967 5,649.42 5,853.04 6,082.46 6,324.15 6,578.86 -

21 1961 4,524.00 4,716.00 4,932.00 5,124.00 5,340.00 _

1962 4,524.00 4,716.00 4,932.00 5,124.00 5,340.00 -

1963 4,716.00 4,932.00 5,124.00 5,340.00 5,568.00 -

1964 4,857.48 5,079.96 5,277.72 5,500.20 5,735.04 -

1965 5,007.48 5,232.36 5,436.05 5,665.21 5,907.09 -

1966 5,216.11 5,440.85 5,644.46 5,873.89 6,115.58 -

1967 5,424.68 5,649.42 5,853.04 6,082.46 6,324.15 -

22 1961 4,332.00 4,524.00 4,716.00 4,932.00 5,124.00 -

1962 4,332.00 4,524.00 4,716.00 4,932.00 5,124.00 -

1963 4,524.00 4,716.00 4,932.00 5,124.00 5,340.00 -

1964 4,659.72 4,857.48 5,079.96 5,277.72 5,500.20 -

1965 4,809.72 5,007.48 5,232.36 5,436.05 5,665.21 -

1966 5,018.23 5,216.11 5,440.85 5,644.46 5,873.89 -

1967 5,226.80 5,424.68 5,649.42 5,853.04 6,082.46 -

See footnote at end o f table.

86

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 29. 1961-67 salary rates (Annual), all city employees, Milwaukee 1— Continued

Pay

range Year

Annual salary rates

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6

23 1961 $4,140.00 $4,332.00 $4,524.00 $4,716.00 $4,932.00

1962 4,140.00 4,332.00 4,524.00 4,716.00 4,932.00 -

1963 4,140.00 4,332.00 4,524.00 4,716.00 4,932.00 $5,124.00

1964 4,264.20 4,461.96 4,659.72 4,857.48 5,079.96 5,277.72

1965 4,414.20 4,611.96 4,809.72 5,007.48 5,232.36 5,436.05

1966 4,622.73 4,820.61 5,018.23 5,216.11 5,440.85 5,644.46

1967 4,831.30 5,029.18 5,226.80 5,424.68 5,649.42 5,853.04

24 1961 3,972.00 4,140.00 4,332.00 4,524.00 4,716.00 _

1962 3,972.00 4,140.00 4,332.00 4,524.00 4,716.00 -

1963 4,140.00 4,332.00 4,524.00 4,716.00 4,932.00 -

1964 4,264.20 4,461.96 4,659.72 4,857.48 5,079.96 -

1965 4,414.20 4,611.96 4,809.72 5,007.48 5,232.36 -

1966 4,622.73 4,820.61 5,018.23 5,216.11 5,440.85 -

1967 4,831.30 5,029.18 5,226.80 5,424.68 5,649.42 -

25 1961 3,636.00 3,804.00 3,972.00 4,140.00 4,332.00 .

1962 3,636.00 3,804.00 3,972.00 4,140.00 4,332.00 -

1963 3,804.00 3,972.00 4,140.00 4,332.00 4,524.00 -

1964 3,918.12 4,091.16 4,264.20 4,461.96 4,659.72 -

1965 4,068.12 4,241.16 4,414.20 4,611.96 4,809.72 -

1966 4,276.76 4,449.61 4,622.73 4,820.61 5,018.23 -

1967 4,485.33 4,658.18 4,831.30 5,029.18 5,226.80 -

26 1961 3,480.00 3,636.00 3,804.00 3,972.00 4,140.00 _

1962 3,480.00 3,636.00 3,804.00 3,972.00 4,140.00 -

1963 3,480.00 3,636.00 3,804.00 3,972.00 4,140.00 4,332.00

1964 3,584.40 3,745.08 3,918.12 4,091.16 4,264.20 4,461.96

1965 3,734.40 3,895.08 4,068.12 4,241.16 4,414.20 4,611.96

1966 3,943.04 4,103.64 4,276.76 4,449.61 4,622.73 4,820.61

1967 4,151.61 4,312.21 4,485.33 4,658.18 4,831.30 5,029.18

27 1961 3,336.00 3,480.00 3,636.00 3,804.00 3,972.00 _

1962 3,336.00 3,480.00 3,636.00 3,804.00 3,972.00 -

1963 3,336.00 3,480.00 3,636.00 3,804.00 3,972.00 4,140.00

1964 3,436.08 3,584.40 3,745.08 3,918.12 4,091.16 4,264.20

1965 3,586.08 3,734.40 3,895.08 4,068.12 4,241.16 4,414.20

1966 3,794.70 3,943.04 4,103.64 4,276.76 4,449.61 4,622.73

1967 4,003.27 4,151.61 4,312.21 4,485.33 4,658.18 4,831.30

1 See footnote 1, table 27.

87

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 30. 1968-69 general salary rates (Biweekly), city employees, Milwaukee

Pay

range Year

Biweekly salary rates

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 1968 $161.55 $167.24 • $173.40 $180.04 $186.67 $193.31

January 1969 181.55 187.24 193.40 200.04 206.67 213.31

July 1969 189.55 195.24 | 201.40 208.04 214.67 221.31 -

4 1968 167.24 173.40 | 180.04 186.67 193.31 200.90 _

January 1969 187.24 193.40 | 200.04 206.67 213.31 220.90 -

July 1969 195.24 201.40 j 208.04 214.67 221.31 228.90 -

5 1968 180.04 186.67 193.31 200.90 208.48 _ _

Januarv 1969 200.04 206.67 i 213.31 220.90 228.48 _ _

July 6, 1969 208.04 214.67 ! 221.31 228.90 236.48 - -

7 1968 193.31 200.90 ! 208.48 216.07 224.69 _ _

January 1969 213.31 220.90 228.48 236.07 244.69 - .

July 6, 1969 221.31 228.90 236.48 244.07 252.69 - -

8 1968 193.31 200.90 208.48 216.07 224.69 232.50 _

January 1969 213.31 220.90 228.48 236.07 244.69 252.50 -

July 6, 1969 221.31 228.90 236.48 244.07 252.69 260.50 -

9 1968 208.48 216.07 224.69 232.50 241.30 _ _

January 1969 228.48 236.07 244.69 252.50 261.30 - _

July 6, 1969 236.48 244.07 252.69 260.50 269.30 - -

10 1968 216.07 224.69 232.50 241.30 250.57 _ _

January 1969 236.07 244.69 252.50 261.30 270.57 - -

July 6, 1969 244.07 252.69 260.50 269.30 278.57 - -

11 1968 224.69 232.50 241.30 1 250.57 260.34 _ _

January 1969 244.69 252.50 261.30 270.57 i 280.34 - .

July 6, 1969 252.69 260.60 269.30 j 278.57 288.34 - -

12 1968 232.50 241.30 250.57 | 260.34 270.59 _ _

January 1969 252.50 261.30 270.57 ! 280.34 290.59 - -

July 6, 1969 260.50 269.30 278.57 288.34 298.59 - -

13 1968 241.30 250.57 260.34 270.59 281.54 . _

January 1969 261.30 270.57 280.34 290.59 301.54 - _

July 6, 1969 269.30 278.57 288.34 298.59 309.54 - -

14 1968 250.57 260.34 | 270.59 281.54 293.99 _ _

January 1969 270.57 280.34 290.59 301.54 313.99 - -

July 6, 1969 278.57 288.34 298.59 309.54 321.99 - -

14(a) July 6, 1969 290.59 301.54 313.99 327.34 - - -

15 1968 260.34 270.59 281.54 293.99 307.34 . _

January 1969 280.34 290.59 301.54 313.99 327.34 - -

July 6, 1969 288.34 298.59 309.54 321.99 335.34 - -

16 1968 270.59 281.54 293.99 307.34 321.22 _

January 1969 290.59 301.54 313.99 327.34 341.22 - -

July 6, 1969 298.59 309.54 321.99 335.34 349.22 - -

17 1968 281.54 293.99 307.34 321.22 336.16 _ .

January 1969 301.54 313.99 327.34 341.22 356.16 - -

July 6, 1969 309.54 321.99 335.34 349.22 364.16 - -

17(a) January 1969 309.70 323.39 338.07 353.34 369.78 387.38 $404.99

July 1969 309.70 323.39 338.07 353.34 369.78 387.38 404.99

18 1968 293.99 307.34 321.22 336.16 352.17 _ _

January 1969 313.99 327.34 341.22 356.16 372.17 - -

July 6, 1969 321.99 335.34 349.22 364.16 380.17 - -

18(a) July 6, 1969 341.22 356.16 372.17 385.25 - - -

19 1968 307.34 321.22 336.16 352.17 368.17 _ .

January 1969 327.34 341.22 356.16 372.17 388.17 - -

July 6, 1969 335.34 349.22 364.16 380.17 396.17 - -

20 1968 321.22 336.16 352.17 368.17 384.18 _ _

January 1969 341.22 356.16 372.17 388.17 404.18 - -

July 6, 1969 349.22 364.16 380.17 396.17 412.18 - -

21 1968 336.16 352.17 368.17 384.18 398.57 _ _

January 1969 356.16 372.17 388.17 404.18 418.57 - -

July 6, 1969 364.16 380.17 396.17 412.18 426.57 - -

21(b) January 1969 369.78 387.38 404.99 422.60 438.42 455.57 472.70

July 1969 369.78 387.38 404.99 422.60 438.42 455.57 472.70

24 1968 384.18 398.57 414.15 429.73 450.33 _ .

January 1969 404.18 418.57 434.15 449.73 470.33 - -

July 6, 1969 412.18 426.57 442.15 457.73 478.33 - -

25 1968 398.57 414.15 429.73 450.33 470.95 . .

January 1969 418.57 434.15 449.73 470.33 490.95 - -

July 6, 1969 426.57 442.15 457.73 478.33 498.95 "

See footnote at end o f table.

88

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 30. 1968-69 general salary rates (Biweekly), city employees, Milwaukee1— Continued

Pay

range Year

Biweekly salary rates

Step rates

1

1 2 3 4 5 j 7 6

26 1968 $414.15 $429.73 $450.33 $470.95 $494.58

January 1969 434.15 449.73 470.33 490.95 514.58 - -

July 6, 1969 442.15 457.73 478.33 498.95 522.58 “ -

27 1968 429.73 450.33 470.95 494.58 517.69 . _

January 1969 449.73 470.33 490.95 514.58 538.40 - -

July 6, 1969 457.73 478.33 498.95 522.58 545.69 - -

28 1968 450.33 470.95 494.58 517.69 543.83 _ _

January 1969 470.33 490.95 514.58 538.40 565.58 - -

July 6, 1969 478.33 498.95 522.58 545.69 571.83

29 1968 470.95 494.58 517.69 543.83 569.45 . .

January 1969 490.95 514.58 538.40 565.58 592.23 - -

July 6, 1969 498.95 522.58 545.69 571.83 597.45 " -

30 1968 494.58 517.69 543.83 569,45 595.59 _

January 1969 514.58 538.40 565.58 592.23 619.41 - -

July 6, 1969 522.58 545.69 571.83 597.45 623.59 -

31 1968 517.69 543.83 569.45 595.59 621.23 . .

January 1969 538.40 565.58 592.23 619.41 646.08 - -

July 6, 1969 545.69 571.83 597.45 623.59 649.23 -

32 1968 543.83 5b9.45 595.59 621.23 652.39 _ _

January 1969 565.58 592.23 619.41 646.08 678.49 - -

July 6, 1969 571.83 597.45 623.59 649.23 680.39 - *

33 1968 569.45 595.59 621.23 652.39 683.55 . -

January 1969 592.23 619.41 646.08 678.49 710.89 - -

July 6, 1969 597.45 623.59 649.23 680.39 711.55 - -

34 1968 595.59 621.23 652.39 683.55 714.21 . .

January 1969 619.41 646.08 678.49 710.89 742.78 - -

July 6, 1969 623.59 649.23 680.39 711.55 742.78 - -

35 1968 621.23 652.39 683.55 714.21 745.37 - _

January 1969 646.08 678.49 710.89 742.78 775.18 - -

July 6, 1969 649.23 680.39 711.55 742.78 775.18 * -

36 1968 652.39 683.55 714.21 745.37 776.54 . .

January 1969 678.49 710.89 742.78 775.18 807,60 - -

July 6, 1S69 680.39 711.55 742.78 775.18 807.60 - -

37 1968 683.55 714.21 745.37 776.54 817.74 - -

January 1969 710.89 742.78 775.18 807.60 850.45 - -

July 6, 1969 711.55 742.78 775.18 807.60 850.45 - -

38 1968 714.21 745.37 776.54 817.74 869.52 _ .

January 1969 742.78 775.18 807.60 850.45 904.30 - -

July 6, 1969 742.78 775.18 807.60 850.45 904.30 -

39 ! 1968 745.37 776.54 817.74 869.52 921.27 _ .

January 1969 775.18 807.60 850.45 904.30 958.12 - -

July 6, 1969 775.18 807.60 850.45 904.30 958.12 - '

40 January 1969 807.60 850.45 904.30 958.12 1,011.97 - -

July 6, 1969 807.60 850.45 904.30 958.12 1,011.97 - -

41 1968 817.74 869.52 921.27 973.05 1,024.83 . .

January 1969 850.45 904.30 958.12 1,011.97 1,065.82 - -

July 6, 1969 850.45 904.30 958.12 1,011.97 1,065.82 -

44 1968 973.05 1,024.83 1,075.91 1,129.91 1,186.29 - -

January 1969 1,011.97 1,065.82 1,118.95 1,175.11 1,233.74 - -

July 6, 1969 1,011.97 1,065.82 1,118.95 1,175.11 1,233.74

1 The sa la ry ord in an ce esta blish in g sa la ry rates fo r 1968 re v e rs e d and ren u m b ered the pay range numt->e**ing system p re v io u sly 

used fro m 1961 through 1967 so that the low est pay range num ber in clu ded the low est sa la ry rates and the highest pay range num ber 

in clu ded the highest sa la ry ra tes.

P ay ranges 1, 2, 6, 22, 23, 42, and 43 w ere not used.

P ay ranges 21 through 44 in clu ded m anagem ent p osition s w hich did not re ce iv e pay o r com p en sa tory tim e o ff fo r o v ertim e 

w orked .

F ire s e r v ice ranks o f F ire fig h te r through F ire Captian w ere co v e re d by a sep arate pay plan having 5 pay ra n ges. (See 

table 38. ) Ranks above F ire Captian in clu ded in g en era l pay sch edu le.

In 1968 the p o lice s e r v ice pay plan adopted in 1965 w as red u ced from 15 pay ranges to 7 pay ranges cov erin g only ranks 

below Captian o f P o lice . (See table 37. ) Ranks o f Captian o f P o lice and above in clu ded m gen era l pay sch edu le.

In 1969 a new sep arate pay plan providin g fo r 4 pay ranges was esta blish ed fo r n ea rly all position s co v e re d by the T e ch ­

n icia n s, E n g in eers, and A rch ite cts of M ilw aukee (TEAM ) co lle c tiv e bargain ing unit. (See table 3 5 .) E ngineerin g T e ch ­

n ician s, IV w as re a llo ca te d to new ly esta blish ed pay range 17 (a) and E n gin eerin g T ech n ician V was re a llo ca te d to new ly 

esta blish ed pay range 21 (b) in the g en era l sa la ry sch edu le.

C la sse s in clu ded in pay range 3 w ere C lerk I, C lerk Stenographer I, C lerk T ypist I, K ey Punch O perator I, and L ib ra ry 

Aide l.

C la sse s in clu ded in pay range 4 w ere B indery Sew er I, C ustodial W ork er I, E leva tor O p era tor, and L aundry W ork er I.

C la sse s in clu ded in pay range 41 w ere C heif E n g in e e r-F ir e D epartm ent, C h ief o f P o lice , C ity E n gin eer, Deputy C o m m ission er o f Health, Deputy C o m m issio n e r of P u blic W orks, M un icipal P ort D ir e cto r, and Tax C o m m issio n e r. Deputy o f 

City D evelopm ent was added in 1969.

89

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

141

15

16

17

171

18

18 (

19

20

21

21<

24

25

1968-69 general salary rates (Monthly), city employees, Milwaukee

Monthly salary rates

Year

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1968 $350.99 $363.35 $376.73 $391.16 $405.56 $419.99

January 1969 394.44 406.80 420.18 434.61 449.01 463.44 -

July 6, 1969 411.82 424.18 437.57 451.99 466.40 480.82 -

1968 363.35 376.73 391.16 405.56 419.99 436.48 _

January 1969 406.80 420.18 434.61 449.01 463.44 479.93 _

July 6, 1969 424.18 437.57 451.99 466.40 480.82 497.31 -

1968 391.16 405.56 419.99 436.48 452.95 . .

January 1969 434.61 449.01 463.44 479.93 496.40 _ _

July 6, 1969 451.99 466.40 480.82 497.31 513.78 - -

1968 419.99 436.48 452.95 469.44 488.17 _ _

January 1969 463.44 479.93 496.40 512.89 531.62 . -

July 6, 1969 480.82 497.31 513.78 530.27 549.00 - *

1968 419.99 436.48 452.95 469.44 488.17 505.13 _

January 1969 463.44 479.93 496.40 512.89 531.62 548.58 _

July 6, 1969 480.82 497.31 513.78 530.27 549.00 565.97 -

1968 452.95 469.44 488.17 505.13 524.25 _ _

January 1969 496.40 512.89 531.62 548.58 567.70 - -

July 6, 1969 513.78 530.27 549.00 565.97 585.09 - -

1968 469.44 488.17 505.13 524.25 544.39 _ .

January 1969 512.89 531.62 548.58 567.70 587.84 - -

July 6, 1969 530.27 549.00 565.97 585.09 605.23 - -

1968 488.17 505.13 524.25 544.39 565.62 _ _

January 1969 531.62 548.58 567.70 587.84 609.07 - -

July 6, 1969 549.00 565.96 585.09 605.23 626.45 - *

1968 505.13 524.25 544.39 565.62 587.89 _ _

January 1969 548.58 567.70 587.84 609.07 631.34 - -

July 6, 1969 565.96 585.09 605.23 626.45 648.72 - -

1968 524.25 544.39 565.62 587.89 611.68 _ _

January 1969 567.70 587.84 609.07 631.34 655.13 - -

July 6, 1969 585.09 605.23 626.45 648.72 672.51 ' -

1968 544.39 565.62 587.89 611.68 638.73 _ _

January 1969 587.84 609.07 631.34 655.13 682.18 - -

July 6, 1969 605.23 626.45 648.72 672.51 699.56 - -

July 6, 1969 631.34 655.13 682.18 711.18 - - -

1968 565.62 587.89 611.68 638.73 667.73 . _

January 1969 609.07 631.34 655.13 682.18 711.18 - -

July 6, 1969 626.45 648.72 672.51 699.56 728.57 - -

1968 587.89 611.68 638.73 667.73 697.89 _ _

January 1969 631.34 655.13 682.18 711.18 741.34 - -

July 6, 1969 648.72 672.51 699.56 728.57 758.72 - -

1968 611.68 638.73 667.73 697.89 730.35 _

January 1969 655.13 682.18 711.18 741.34 773.80 - -

July 6, 1969 672.51 699.56 728.57 758.72 791.18 * -

January 1969 672.85 702.60 734.50 767.68 803.39 841.64 $879.88

July 6, 1969 672.85 702.60 734.50 767.68 803.39 841.64 879.88

1968 638.73 667.73 697.89 730.35 765.13 . .

January 1969 682.18 711.18 741.34 773.80 808.58 - -

July 6, 1969 699.56 728.57 758.72 791.18 825.97 -

July 6, 1969 741.34 773.80 808.58 837.00 - - -

1968 667.73 697.89 730.35 765.13 799.89 _ _

January 1969 711.18 741.34 733.80 808.58 843.34 - -

July 6, 1969 728.57 758.72 791.18 825.97 860.73 - '

1968 697.89 730.35 765.13 799.89 834.68 _ .

January 1969 741.34 773.80 808.58 843.34 878.13 - -

J«iy 6, 1969 758.72 791.18 825.97 860.73 895.51 " -

1968 730.35 765.13 799.89 834.68 865.94 - -

January 1969 773.80 808.58 843.34 878.13 909.39 - -

July 6, 1969 791.18 825.97 860.73 895.51 926.77 -

January 1969 803.39 841.64 879.88 918.15 952.53 989.77 1,027.00

July 6, 1969 803.39 841.64 879.88 918.15 952.53 989.77 1,027.00

1968 834.68 865.94 899.79 933.64 978.40 . _

January 1969 878.13 909.39 943.24 977.09 1,021.85 - -

July 6, 1969 895.51 926.77 960.62 944.47 1,039.23 - -

1968 865.94 899.79 933.64 978.40 1,023.19 .

January 1969 909.39 943.24 977.09 1,021.85 1,066.64 - -

July 6, 1969 926.77 960.62 994.47 1,039.23 1,084.03 - -

note at end o f table.

90

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 31. 1968-69 general salary rates (Monthly), city employees, Milwaukee1—-Continued

Pay

Monthly Salary rates

Step rates

range Year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26 1968 $899.79 $933.64 $978.40 $1,023.19 $1,074.53 _ _

January 1969 943.24 977.09 1,021.85 1,066.64 1,117.98 - -

July 6, 1969 960.62 994.47 1,039.23 1,084.03 1,135.37 - -

27 1968 933.64 978.40 1,023.19 1,074.53 1,124.74 _ .

January 1969 977.09 1,021.85 1,066.64 1,117.98 1,169.73 - -

July 6, 1969 994.47 1,039.23 1,084.03 1,135.37 1,185.58 - -

28 1968 978.40 1,023.19 1,074.53 1,124.74 1,181.54 _ _

January 1969 1,021.85 1,066.64 1,117.98 1,169.73 1,228.80 - -

July 6, 1969 1,039.23 1,084.03 1,135.37 1,185.58 1,242.37 "

29 1968 1,023.19 1,074.53 1,124.74 1,181.54 1,237.20 _ .

January 1969 1,066.64 1,117.98 1,169.73 1,228.80 1,286.69 - -

July 6, 1969 1,084.03 1,135.37 1,185.58 1,242.37 1,298.03 -

30 1968 1,074.53 1,124.74 1,181.54 1,237.20 1,293.99 . _

January 1969 1,117.98 1,169.73 1,228.80 1,286.69 1,345.75 - -

July 6, 1969 1,135.37 1,185.58 1,242.37 1,298.03 1,354.82 - -

31 1968 1,124.74 1,181.54 1,237.20 1,293.99 1,349.70 _ _

January 1969 1,169.73 1,228.80 1,286.69 1,345.75 1,403.68 - -

July 6, 1969 1,185.58 1,242.37 1,298.03 1,354.82 1,410.53 -

32 1968 1,181.54 1,237.20 1,293.99 1,349.70 1,417.39 _ _

January 1969 1,228.80 1,286.69 1,345.75 1,403.68 1,474.09 - -

July 6, 1969 1,242.37 1,298.03 1,354.82 1,410.53 1,478.23 - -

33 1968 1,237.20 1,293.99 1,349.99 1,417.39 1,485.09 . _

January 1969 1,286.69 1.345.75 1,403.68 1,474.09 1,544.50 - -

July 6, 1969 1,298.03 1,354.82 1,410.53 1,478.23 1,545.93 - -

34 1968 1,293.99 1,349.70 1,417.39 1,485.09 1,551.71 _

January 1969 1,345.75 1,403.68 1,474.09 1,544.50 1,613.78 - -

July 6, 1969 1,354.82 1,410.53 1,478.23 1,545.93 1,613.78 -

35 1968 1,349.70 1,417.39 1,485.09 1,551.71 1,619.41 _

January 1969 1,403.68 1,474.09 1,544.50 1,613.78 1,684.17 - -

July 6, 1969 1,410.53 1,478.23 1,545.93 1,613.78 1,684.17 - -

36 1968 1,417.39 1,485.09 1,551.71 1,619.41 1,687.13 _ _

January 1969 1,474.09 1,544.50 1,613.78 1,684.17 1,754.61 - -

July 6, 1969 1,478.23 1,545.93 1,613.78 1,684.17 1,754.61 -

37 1968 1,485.09 1,551.71 1,619.41 1,687.13 1,776.64 _ _

January 1969 1,544.50 1,613.78 1,684.17 1,754.61 1,847.70 - -

July 6, 1969 1,545.93 1,613.78 1,684.17 1,754.61 1,847.70 -

38 1968 1,551.71 1,619.41 1,687.13 1,776.64 1,889.14 _ .

January 1969 1,613.78 1,684.17 1,754.61 1,847.70 1,964.70 - -

July 6, 1969 1,613.78 1,684.17 1,754.61 1,847.70 1,964.70 - -

39 1968 1,619.41 1,687.13 1,776.64 1,889.14 2,001.57 _ _

January 1969 1,684.17 1,754.61 1,847.70 1,964.70 2,081.63 - -

July 6, 1969 1,684.17 1,754.61 1,847.70 1,964.70 2,081.63 -

40 January 1969 1,754.61 1,847.70 1,964.70 2,081.63 2,198.63 _ _

July 6, 1969 1,754.61 1,847.70 1,964.70 2,081.63 2,198.63 -

41 1968 1,776.64 1,889.14 2,001.57 2,114.07 2,226.57 _

January 1969 1,847.70 1,964.70 2,081.63 2,198.63 2,315.63 - -

July 6, 1969 1,847.70 1,964.70 2,081.63 2,198.63 2,315.62 -

44 1968 2,114.07 2,226.57 2,337.54 2,454.86 2,577.36 . -

January 1969 2,198.63 2,315.62 2,431.05 2,553.07 2,680.45 - -

July 6, 1969 2,198.63 2,315.62 2,431.05 2,553.07 2,680.45

1 See footnote 1, table 30.

91

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 32. 1968*69 general salary rates (Annual), city employees, Milwaukee

Annual salary rates

Pay

range Year

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 1968 $4,211.84 $4,360.18 $4,520.78 $4,693.90 $4,866.75 $5,039.87

January 1969 4,733.27 4,881.61 5,042.21 5,215.33 5,388.18 5,561.30 -

July 6, 1969 4,941.84 5,090.19 5,250.79 5,423.90 5,596.75 5,769.87

4 1968 4,360.18 4,520.78 4,693.90 4,866.75 5,039.87 5,237.75 _

January 1969 4,881.61 5,042.21 5,215.53 5,388.18 5,561.30 5,759.18 -

July 6, 1969 5,090.19 5,250.79 5,423.90 5,596.75 5,769.87 5,967.75 -

5 1968 4,693.90 4,866.75 5,039.87 5,237.75 5,435.37 _ _

January 1969 5,215.33 5,388.18 5,561.30 5,759.18 5,956.80 - -

July 6, 1969 5,423.90 5,596.75 5,769.87 5,967.75 6,165.37 - -

7 1968 5,039.87 5,237.75 5,435.37 5,633.25 5,857.99 _ _

January 1969 5,561.30 5,759.18 5,956.80 6,154.68 6,379.42 - -

July 6, 1969 5,769.87 5,967.75 6,165.37 6,363.25 6,587.99 - -

8 1968 5,039.87 5,237.75 5,435.37 5,633.25 5,857.99 6,061.61 .

January 1969 5,561.30 5,759.18 5,956.80 6,154.68 6,379.42 6,583.04 .

July 6, 1969 5,769.87 5,967.75 6,165.37 6,363.25 6,587.99 6,791.61 -

9 1968 5,435.37 5,633.25 5,857.99 6,061.61 6,291.03 _

January 1969 5,956.80 6,154.68 6,379.42 6,583.04 6,812.46 - -

July 6, 1969 6,165.37 6,363.25 6,587.99 6,791.61 7,021.04 -

10 1968 5,633.25 5,857.99 6,061.61 6,291.03 6,532.72 _ _

January 1969 6,154.68 6,379.42 6,583.04 6,812.46 7,054.15 - -

July 6, 1969 6,363.25 6,587.99 6,791.61 7,021.04 7,262.72 - -

11 1968 5,857.99 6,061.61 6,291.03 6,532.72 6,787.43 _ _

January 1969 6,379.42 6,583.04 6,812.46 7,054.15 7,308.86 - -

July 6, 1969 6,587.09 6,791.61 7,021.04 7,262.72 7,517.44 * -

12 1968 6,061.61 6,291.03 6,532.72 6,787.43 7,054.67 . _

January 1969 6,583.04 6,812.46 7,054.15 7,308.86 7,576.10 - -

July 6, 1969 6,791.61 7,021.04 7,262.72 7,517.44 7,784.67 - -

13 1968 6,291.03 6,532.72 6,787.43 7,054.67 7,340.15 _ _

January 1969 6,812.46 7,054.15 7,308.86 7,576.10 7,861.58 - -

July 6, 1969 7,021.04 7,262.72 7,517.44 7,784.67 8,070.15 - -

U 1968 6,532.72 6,787.43 7,054.67 7,340.15 7,664.74 _ _

January 1969 7,054.15 7,308.86 7,576.10 7,861.58 8,186.17 - -

July 6, 1969 7,262.72 7,517.44 7,784.67 8,070.15 8,394.74 - -

14(a) July 6, 1969 7,576.10 7,861.58 8,186.17 8,534.22 - - *

15 1968 6,787.43 7,054.67 7,340.15 7,664.74 8,012.79 . .

January 1969 7,308.86 7,576.10 7,861.58 8,186.17 8,534.22 - -

July 6, 1969 7,517.44 7,784.67 8,070.15 8,394.74 8,742.79 - -

16 1968 7,054.67 7,340.15 7,664.74 8,012.79 8,374.66 _ _

January 1969 7,576.10 7,861.58 8,186.17 8,534.22 8,896.09 - -

July 6, 1969 7,784.67 8,070.15 8,394.74 8,742.79 9,104.66 -

17 1968 7,340.15 7,664.74 8,012.79 8,374.66 8,764.17 .

January 1969 7,861.58 8,186.17 8,534.22 8,896.09 9,285.60 - -

July 6, 1969 8,070.15 8,394.74 8,742.79 9,104.66 9,494.17 -

17(a) January 1969 8,074.20 8,431.20 8,814.00 9,212.16 9,640.68 10,099.68 $10,558.56

July 6, 1969 8,074.20 8,431.20 8,814.00 9,212.16 9,460.68 10,099.68 10,558.56

18 1968 7,664.74 8,012.79 8,374.66 8,764.17 9,181.58 _ _

January 1969 8,186.17 8,534.22 8,896.09 9,285.60 9,703.01 - -

July 6, 1969 8,394.74 8,742.79 9,104.66 9,494.17 9,911.58 -

18(a) July 6, 1969 8,896.09 9,285.60 9,703.01 10,044.02 - - -

19 1968 8,012.79 8,374.66 8,764.17 9,181.58 9,598.72 . _

January 1969 8,534.22 8,896.09 9,285.60 9,703.01 10,120.15 - -

July 6, 1969 8,742.79 9,104.66 9,494.17 9,911.58 10,328.72 - -

20 1968 8,374.66 8,764.17 9,181.58 9,598.72 10,016.12 _ .

January 1969 8,896.09 9,285.60 9,703.01 10,120.15 10,537.55 - -

July 6, 1969 9,104.66 9,494.17 9,911.58 10,328.72 10,746.12 -

21 1968 8,764.17 9,181.58 9,598.72 10,016.12 10,391.29 _

January 1969 9,285.60 9,703.01 10,120.15 10,537.55 10,912.72 - -

July 6, 1969 9,494.17 9,911.58 10,328.72 10,746.12 11,121.29 * -

21(b) January 1969 9,640.68 10,099.68 10,558.56 11,017.80 11,430.36 11,877.24 12,324.00

July 6, 1969 9,640.68 10,099.68 10,558.56 11,017.80 11,430.36 11,877.24 12,324.00

24 1968 10,016.12 10,391.29 10,797.48 11,203.67 11,740.75 _ _

January 1969 10,537.55 10,912.72 11,318.91 11,725.10 12,262.18 - -

July 6, 1969 10,746.12 11,121.29 11,527.48 11,933.68 12,470.75 - -

25 1968 10,391.29 10,797.48 11,203.67 11,740.75 12,278.34 _ -

January 1969 10,912.72 11,318.91 11,725.10 12,262.18 12,799.77 - -

July 6, 1969 11,121.29 11,527.48 11,933.68 12,470.75 13,008.34 - -

See footnote at end o f table.

92

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 32. 1968-69 general salary rates (Annual), city employees, Milwaukee1— Continued

Annual salary rates

Pay

range Year

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26 1968 $10,797.48 $11,203.67 $11,740.75 $12,278.34 $12,894.41

January 1969 11,318.91 11,725.10 12,262.18 12,799.77 13,415.84 - -

July 6, 1969 11,527.48 11,933.68 12,470.75 13,008.34 13,624.41 - -

27 1968 11,203.67 11,740.75 12,278.34 12,894.41 13,496.92 _ .

January 1969 11,725.10 12,262.18 12,799.77 13,415.84 14,036.79 - -

July 6, 1969 11,933.68 12,470.75 13,008.34 13,624.41 14,226.92 - -

28 1968 11,740.75 12,278.34 12,894.41 13,496.92 14,178.42 . _

January 1969 12,262.18 12,799.77 13,415.84 14,036.79 14,745.56 - -

July 6, 1969 12,470.75 13,008.34 13,624.41 14,226.92 14,908.43 - -

29 1968 12,278.34 12,894.41 13,496.92 14,178.42 14,846.37 . _

January 1969 12,799.77 13,415.84 14,036.79 14,745.56 15,440.23 - -

July 6, 1969 13,008.34 13,624.41 14.226.92 14,908.43 15,576.38 - -

30 1968 12,894.41 13,496.92 14,178.42 14,846.37 15,527.88 . _

January 1969 13,415.84 14,036.79 14,745.56 15,440.23 16,149.00 - -

July 6, 1969 13,624.41 14,226.92 14,908.43 15,576.38 16,257.88 -

31 1968 13,496.92 14,178.42 14,846.37 15,527.88 16,196.35 _ .

January 1969 14,036.79 14,745.56 15,440.23 16,149.00 16,844.21 - -

July 6, 1969 14,226.92 14,908.43 15,576.38 16,257.88 16,926.35

32 1968 14,178.42 14,846.37 15,527.88 16,196.35 17,008.74 - .

January 1969 14,745.56 15,440.23 16,149.00 16,844.21 17,689.09 - -

July 6, 1969 14,908.43 15,576.38 16,257.88 16,926.35 17,738.74 - -

33 1968 14,846.37 15,527.88 16,196.35 17,008.74 17,821.12 _ _

January 1969 15,440.23 16,149.00 16,844.21 17,689.09 18,533.97 - -

July 6, 1969 15,576.38 16,257.88 16.926.35 17,738.74 18,551.13

34 1968 15,527.88 16,196.35 17,008.74 17,821.12 18,620.47 . _

January 1969 16,149.00 16,844.21 17,689.09 18,533.97 19,365.34 - -

July 6, 1969 16,257.88 16,926.35 17,738.74 18,551.13 19,365.34 - -

35 1968 16,196.35 17,008.74 17,. 821.12 18,620.47 19,432.86 . _

January 1969 16,844.21 17,689.09 18,533.97 19,365.34 20,210.05 - -

July 6, 1969 16,926.35 17,738.74 18,551.13 19,365.34 20,210.05 -

36 1968 17,008.74 17,821.12 18,620.47 19,432.86 20,245.51 . _

January 1969 17,689.09 18,533.97 19,365.34 20,210.05 21,055.29 - -

July 6, 1969 17,738.74 18,551.13 19,365.34 20,210.05 21,055.29 - -

37 1968 17,821.12 18,620.47 19,432.86 20,245.51 21,319.65 _ .

January 1969 18,533.97 19,365.34 20,210.05 21,055.29 22,172.45 - -

July 6, 1969 18,551.13 19,365.34 20,210.05 21,055.29 22,172.45 - -

38 1968 18,620.47 19,432.86 20,245.51 21,319.65 22,669.63 . _

January 1969 19,365.34 20,210.05 21,055.29 22,175.45 23,576.39 - -

July 6, 1969 19,365.34 20,210.05 21,055.29 22,175.45 23,576.39 - -

39 1968 19,432.86 20,245.51 21,319.65 22,669.63 24,018.82 _ .

January 1969 20,210.05 21,055.29 22,175.45 23,576.39 24,979.56 - -

July 6, 1969 20,210.05 21,055.29 22,175.45 23,576.39 24,979.56 -

40 January 1969 21,055.29 22,175.45 23,576.39 24,979.56 26,383.50 _ .

July 6, 1969 21,055.29 22,175.45 23,576.39 24,979.56 26,383.50 - -

41 1968 21,319.65 22,669.63 24,018.82 25,368.80 26,718.78 _ _

January 1969 22,175.45 23,576.39 24,979.56 26,383.50 27,787.45 - -

July 6, 1969 22,175.45 23,576.39 24,979.56 26,383.50 27,787.45 - -

44 1968 25,368.80 26,718.78 28,050.51 29,458.37 30,928.27 . _

January 1969 26,383.50 27,787.45 29,172.63 30,636.80 32,165.36 - -

July 6, 1969 26,383.50 j 27,787.45 29,172.63 30,636.80 32,165.36 - -

See footnote 1, table 30.

93

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2

3

3

4

5

8

9

9(a)4

10

11

12

13

13(a)"

14

15

16

17

17(a/

18

19

20

21

21(a)

1970 nonm anagem ent salary rates (Biw eekly, M on th ly, and Annual), city em ployees,

a 1

Biweekly , monthly, and annual salary rates

Interval

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Biweekly $214.14 $219.83 $225.99 $232.63 $239.26 $245.90

Monthly 465.24 477.60 490.99 505.41 519.82 534.24 -

Annual 5,582.93 5,731.28 5,891.88 6,064.99 6,237.85 6,410.96 -

Biweekly 219.83 225.99 232.63 239.26 245.90 253.49 _

Monthly 477.60 490.99 505.41 519.82 534.24 550.73 -

Annual 5,731.28 5,891.88 6,064.99 6,237.85 6,410.96 6,608.84 -

Biweekly 232.63 239.26 245.90 253.49 261.07 _ _

Monthly 505.41 519.82 534.24 550.73 567.20 - -

Annual 6,064.96 6,237.85 6,410.96 6,608.84 6,806.46 - -

Biweekly 245.90 253.49 261.07 268.66 277.28 _ .

Monthly 534.24 550.73 567.20 583.69 602.42 - -

Annual 6,410.96 6,608.84 6,806.46 7,004.35 7,229.08 - -

Biweekly 245.90 253.49 261.07 268.66 277.28 285.09 _

Monthly 534.24 550.73 567.20 583.69 602.42 619.39 -

Annual 6,410.96 6,608.84 6,806.46 7,004.35 7,229.08 7,432.70 -

Biweekly 261.07 268.66 277.28 285.09 293.89 _ _

Monthly 567.20 583.69 602.42 619.39 638.51 - -

Annual 6,806.46 7,004.35 7,229.08 7,432.70 7,662.13 - -

Biweekly 251.94 261.99 271.09 281.36 292.16 _ _

Monthly 547.36 569.21 588.98 611.28 634.76 - -

Annual 6,568.32 6,830.52 7,067.76 7,335.36 7,617.12 -

Biweekly 268.66 277.28 285.09 293.89 303.16 _ _

Monthly 583.69 602.42 619.39 638.51 658.65 - -

Annual 7,004.35 7,229.08 7,432.70 7,662.13 7,903.31 - -

Biweekly 277.28 285.09 293.89 303.16 312.93 ! _

Monthly 602.42 619.39 638.51 658.65 679.88 j

-

Annual 7,229.08 7,432.70 7,662.13 7,903.81 8,158.53 -

Biweekly 285.09 293.89 303.16 312.93 323.18 ! _

Monthly 619.39 638.51 658.65 679.88 702.14 - -

Annual 7,432.70 7,662.13 7,903.81 8,158.53 8,425.76 : -

Biweekly 293.89 303.16 312.93 323.18 334.13 : _

Monthly 638.51 658.65 679.88 702.14 725.93 \ -

Annual 7,662.13 7,903.81 8,158.53 8,425.76 8,711.24 -

Biweekly 292.16 303.56 315.51 328.28 342.79 \ 358.36 _

Monthly 634.76 659.51 685.48 713.22 744.76 1 778.57 -

Annual 7,617.12 7,914.12 8,225.76 8,558.64 8,937.12 i 9,342.84 -

Biweekly 303.16 312.93 323.18 334.13 346.58 _ .

Monthly 658.65 679.88 702.14 725.93 752.98 - -

Annual 7,903.81 8,158.53 8,425.76 8,711.24 9,035.83 *

Biweekly 312.93 323.18 334.13 346.58 359.93 _ .

Monthly 679.88 702.14 725.93 752.98 781.99 - -

Annual 8,158.53 8,425.76 8,711.24 9,035.83 9,383.89 - -

Biweekly 323.18 334.13 346.58 359.93 373.81 _ .

Monthly 702.14 725.93 752.98 781.99 812.14 - -

Annual 8,425.76 8,711.24 9,035.83 9,383.89 9,745.76 - -

Biweekly 334.13 346.58 359.93 373.81 388,75 . _

Monthly 725.93 752.98 781.99 812.14 844.60 - -

Annual 8,711.24 9,035.83 9,383.89 jj 9,745.76 10,135.26

j

-

Biweekly 328.28 342.79 358.36 374.54 391.96 [ 410.63 $429.28

Monthly 713.22 744.76 778.57 813.74 851.59 892.14 932.67

Annual 8,558.64 8,937.12 9,342.84 9,764.88 10,219.08 10,705.68 11,192.04

Biweekly 346.58 359.93 373.81 388.75 404.76 !1 .

Monthly 752.98 781.99 812.14 844.60 879.39 - -

Annual 9,035.83 9,383.89 9,745.76 10.135.26 10,552.67 - -

Biweekly 359.93 373.81 388.75 404.76 420.76 . _

Monthly 781.99 812.14 844.60 879.39 914.15 - -

Annual 9,383.89 9,745,76 10,135.26 10,552.67 10,969.81 - -

Biweekly 373.81 388.75 404.76 420.76 436.77 . .

Monthly 812.14 844.60 879.39 914.15 948.93 - -

Annual 9,745.76 10,135.26 10,552.67 10,969.81 11,387.21 - -

Biweekly 388.75 404.76 420.76 436.77 451.16 _ .

Monthly 844.60 879.39 914.15 948.93 980.20 Ii -

Annual 10,135.26 10,552.67 10,969.81 11,387.21 11,762.38 ji

-

Biweekly 388.75 404.76 420.76 437.26 452.22 . _

Monthly 844.60 879.39 914.15 949.99 982.50 - -

Annual 10,135.26 10,552.67 10,969.81 11,399.91 11,790.09 - -

Biweekly 391.96 410.63 429.28 447.96 464.73 ' 482.90 501.06

Monthly 851.59 892.14 932.67 973.24 1,009.68 1,049.15 1,088.62

Annual 10,219.08 10,705.68 11,192.04 11,678.88 12,116.16 12,589.80 13.063.44

footn otes at end o f table.

94

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 33. 1970 nonmanagement salary rates (Biweekly, Monthly, and Annual), city employees,

Milwaukee1— Continued

Biweeklyj, monthly, and annual salary rates

Pay

range

Interval

Step rates

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24 Biweekly $436.77 $451.16 $466.74 $482.32 ■ $502.92 i

Monthly 948.93 980.20 1,014.05 1,047.90 1,092.65 |

Annua1 11,387.21 11,762.38 12,168.58 12,574.77 ,13,111.34

1

24(a) Biweekly 447.96 464.73 482.90 501.06 ' 525.09

i

i

Monthly 973.24 1,009.68 1,049.15 1,088.62 , 1,140.81 - -

Annual 11,678.88 12,116.16 12,589.80 13,063.44 : 13,689.72 •

25 Biweekly 451.16 466.74 482.32 502.92 523.54 - -

Monthly 980.20 1,014.05 1.047.90 1,092.65 1,137.45 - -

Annual 11,762.38 12,168.58 12,574.77 13,111.84 ,13,649.43 * "

25(a) Biweekly 452.22 468.43 484.63 506.05 527.50 . -

Monthly 982.50 1,017.70 1,052.91 1,099.46 ; 1,146.05 - -

Annual : 11,790.09

j

12,212.53 j12,634.98 13,193.53 j113,752.62 - "

26 Biweekly ‘ 466.74 482.32 I 502.92 523.54 | 547.17 j

Monthly 1 1,014.05 1,047.90 | 1,092.65 1,137.45 I 1,188.79 1

Annual !12,168.58 12,574.77 j;13,111.84 13,649.43 14,265.50 Il

27 Biweekly 482.32 502.92 i 523.54 547.17 |; 570.28 . -

Mont.hly 1,047.90 1,092.65 j 1,137.45 1,188.79 j 1,239.00 - -

Annua1 12,574.77 13,111.84 ;13,649.43 14,265.50 !114,868.01 - •

27(a) Biweekly 484.63 506.05 527.50 552.07 !! 576.11 - -

Monthly 1,052.91 1,099.46 1,146.05 1,199.44 1,251.66 - -

Annual 12,634.98 13,193.53 13,752.62 14,393.34 15,019.95 - ■

28(a) Biweekly 506.05 527.50 552.07 1 576.11 603.29 - -

Monthly 1,099.46 1,146.05 1,199.44 1,251.66 1,310.72 - -

Annual 13,193.53 , 13,752.62 14,393.34 15,019.95 15,728.72 - -

5

29(a) Biweekly 527.50 ' 552.07 576.11 603.29 629.94 - -

Monthly 1,146.05 ;| 1,199.44 1,251.66 1,310.72 1,368.61 - -

Annual 13,752.62 14,393.34 15,019.95 15,728.72 16,423.39 ! •

31(a)6 Biweekly 576.11 603.29 629.94 657.12 683.79 - -

Monthly 1,251.66 1,310.72 1,368.61 1,427.67 1,485.61 i -

Annual 15,019.95 15,728.72 16,423.39 17,132.15 17,827.35 i *

34(a)7 Biweekly 657.12 683.79 716.20 748.60 781.08 . -

Monthly 1,427.67 1,485.61 1,556.02 1,626.43 1,696.99 - -

Annual 17,132.15 17,827.35 18,672.24 19,517.13 20,363.90

1 The sa la ry ordin an ce establish in g sa la ry ra tes fo r 1970 co v e rin g gen era l e m p loy ees p rov id ed sep arate pay plans fo r 

nonm anagem ent and m anagem ent em p lo y e e s. (See table 34 fo r m anagem ent sa la ry ra tes. ) It a lso p rov id ed fo r a separate pay 

plan fo r n ea rly a ll p o sition s co v e re d by the T ech n ician s, E n gin eers, and A rch ite cts of M ilw aukee (T E A M ) c o lle c tiv e bargain ing 

unit. (S ee table 36. )

Pay ran ges 1, 2, 6, 22, 23, 30, 32, and 33 w ere not used.

A sep arate pay plan having 5 pay ran ges co v e re d fir e s e r v ice ranks of F ire fig h te r through F ire b o a t P ilot. (See table 3 8 .) 

Ranks of F ire Captain and above in clu ded in m anagem ent pay plan.

A separate pay plan having 7 pay ran ges co v e re d p o lic e s e r v ice ranks o f P o lice M atron through C hief D ocum ent E xam iner 

and R adio M ech an ic F orem an . (See table 3 7 .) Ranks of Lieutenant o f P o lice and above in clu ded in m anagem ent pay plan.

2 C la sse s in clu ded in pay range 3 included C lerk I, C lerk Stenographer I, C lerk T yp ist I, K ey Punch O perator I, and

L ib ra ry A id e I.

3 C la s se s in clu ded in pay range 4 in clu ded B indery S ew er I, C u stodial W ork er I, E leva tor O perator I, and Laundry W ork er I.

4 Salary ra tes in a ll pay ran ges excep t 9(a), 13(a), 17(a), and 21(b) in clu ded $ 8 .5 9 biw eekly, $ 1 8 .6 6 m onthly, and $223. 95

annual C PI adjustm ent based on the BLS C onsum er P r ic e Index fo r M ilw aukee. P ay ra n ges 9(a), 13(a), 17(a) and 21(b) in clu ded 

en gin eerin g draftsm en and tech n ician p osition s and w ere not su bject to the CPI adjustm ent. Step ra tes 6 and 7 fo r pay ranges 

17(a) and 21(b) w ere establish ed to re co g n iz e edu cation and length o f se r v ice .

5 C la sse s in clu ded in pay range 29(a) in clu ded C hem ist V and V iro lo g ist I.

6 C la sse s in clu ded in pay range 31(a) in clu ded P h ysicia n I.

7 C la sse s in clu ded in pay range 34(a) in clu ded P u blic Health P h ysicia n I.

95

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 34. 1970 management salary rates (Biweekly, Monthly, and Annual), city employees, Milwaukee

Biweekly , monthly, and annual salary rates

Pay

range Interval

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2

M-l Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

$284.11

617.26

7,407.15

$293.89

638.51

7,662.13

$304.20

660.91

7,930.93

$315.01

684.40

8,212.76

$326.56

709.49

8,513.89

$339.70

738.04

8,856.46

$353.78

768.63

9,223.55

$368.43

800.46

9,605.50

2

M-2 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

293.89

638.51

7,662.13

304.20

660.71

7,930.93

315.01

684.04

8,212.76

326.56

709.49

8,513.89

339.70

738 04

8,856.46

353.78

768.63

. 9,223.55

368.43

800.46

9,605.50

384.19

834.70

10,016.38

M-3 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

304.20

660.71

7,930.93

315.01

684.40

8,212.76

326.56

709.49

8,513.89

339.70

738.04

8,856.46

353.78

768.63

9,223.55

368.43

800.46

9,605.50

384.19

834.70

10,016.38

401.08

871.39

10,456.73

M-4 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

315.01

684.40

8,212.76

326.56

709.49

8,513.89

339.70

738.04

8,856.46

353.78

768.63

9,223.55

368.43

800.46

9,605.50

384.19

834.70

10,016.38

401.08

871.39

10,456.73

417.96

908.07

10,896.81

M-5 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

326.56

709.49

8,513.89

339.70

738.04

8,856.46

353.78

768.63

9,223.55

368.43

800.46

9,605.50

384.19

834.70

10,016.38

401.08

871.39

10,456.73

417.96

908.07

10,896.16

434.85

944.76

11,337.16

M-6 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

339.70

738.04

8,856.46

353.78

768.63

9,223.55

368.43

800.46

9,605.50

384.19

834.70

10,016.38

401.08

871.39

10,456.73

417.96

908.07

10,896.81

434.85

944.76

11,337.16

450.03

977.74

11,732.93

H-7 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

353.78

768.63

9,223.55

368.43

800.46

9,605.50

384.19

834.70

10,016.38

401.08

871.39

10,456.73

417.96

908.07

10,896.81

434.85

944.76

11,337.16

450.03

977.74

11,732.93

466.47

1,013.46

12,161.54

M-8

1

|Biweekly

(Monthly

(Annual

368.43

800.46

9,605.50

384.19

834.70

10,016.38

401.08

871.39

10,456.73

417.96

908.07

10,896.81

434.85

944.76

11,337.16

450.03

977.74

11,732.93

466.47

1,013.46

12,161.54

482.91

1,049.18

12,590.15

M-9 j Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

384.19

834.70

10,016.38

401.08

871.39

10,456.73

417.96

908.07

10,896.81

434.85

944.76

11,337.16

450.03

977.74

11,732.93

466.47

1,013.46

12,161.54

482.91

1,049.18

12,590.15

504.64

1,096.39

13,156.69

M-10 Biweekly

Monthly

Annua1

401.08

871.39

10,456.73

417.96

908.09

10,896.81

434.85

944.76

11,337.16

450.03

977.74

11,732.93

466.47

1,013.46

12,161.54

482.91

1,049.18

12,590.15

504.64

! 1,096.39

13,156.69

526.39

1,143.60

13,723.74

M-ll Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

417.96

908.07

10,896.81

434.85

944.76

11,337.16

450.03

977.74

11,732.93

466.47

1,013.46

12,161.54

482.91

1,049.18

12,590.15

504.64

1,096.39

13,156.69

526.39

1,143.60

13,723.74

551.32

1,197.81

14,373.70

M - 12 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

434.85

944.76

11,337.16

450.03

977.74

11,732.93

466.47

1,013.46

12,161.54

482.91

1,049.18

12,590.15

504.64

1,096.39

13,156.69

526.39

1,143.60

13,723.74

551.32

1,197.81

14,373.70

575.70

1,250.78

15,009.32

M-13 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

450.03

977.74

11,732.93

466.47

1,013.46

12,161.54

482.91

1,049.18

12,590.15

504.64

1,096.39

13,156.69

526.39

1,143.60

13,723.74

551.32

1,197.81

14,373.70

575.70

1,250.78

15,009.32

603.28

1,310.70

15,728.37

M - 14 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

466.47

1,013.46

12,161.54

482.91

1,049.18

12,590.15

504.64

1,096.39

13,156.69

526.39

1,143.60

13,723.74

551.32

1,197.81

14,373.70

575.70

1,250.78

15,009.36

603.28

1,310.70

15,728.37

630.31

1,369.42

16,433.08

M - 15 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

482.91

1,049.18

12,590.15

504.64

1,096.39

13,156.69

526.39

1,143.60

13,723.74

551.32

1,197.81

14,373.70

575.70

1,250.78

15,009.36

603.28

1,310.70

15,728.37

630.31

1,369.42

16,433.08

657.89

1,429.34

17,152.13

M-16 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

504.64

1,096.39

13,156.69

526.39

1,143.60

13,723.74

551.32

1,197.60

14,373.70

575.70

1,250.78

15,009.32

603.28

1,310.70

15,728.37

630.31

1,369.42

16,433.08

657.89

1,429.34

17,152.13

684.94

1,488.11

17,857.36

M - 17 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

526.39

1,143.60

13,723.74

551.32

1,197.81

14,373.70

575.70

1,250.78

15,009.32

603.28

1,310.70

15,728.37

630.31

1,369.42

16,433.08

657.89

1,429.34

17,152.13

684.94

1,488.11

17,857.36

717.81

1,559.53

18,714.33

M-18 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

551.32

1,197.81

14,373.70

575.70

1,250.78

15,009.32

603.28

1,310.70

15,728.37

630.31

1,369.42

16,433.08

657.89

1,429.34

17,152.13

684.94

1,488.11

17,857.36

717.81

1,559.53

18,714.33

750.69

1,630.96

19,571.56

M-19 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

575.70

1,250.78

15,009.32

603.28

1,310.70

15,728.37

630.31

1,369.42

16,433.08

657.89

1,429.34

17,152.13

684.94

1,488.11

17,857.36

717.81

1,559.53

18,714.33

750.69

1,630.96

19,751.56

783.63

1,702.53

20,430.35

M-20 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

603.28

1,310.70

15,728.37

630.31

1,369.42

16,433.08

657.89

1,429.34

17,152.13

684.94

1,488.11

17,857.36

717.81

1,559.53

18,714.33

750.69

1,630.96

19,571.56

783.63

1,702.53

20,430.35

817.81

1,776.79

21,321.48

M-21 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

630.31

1,369.42

16,433.08

657.89

1,429.34

17,152.13

684.94

1,488.11

17,857.36

717.81

1,559.53

18,714.33

750.69

1,630.96

19,571.56

783.63

1,702.53

20,430.35

817.81

1,776.79

21,321.48

852.02

1,851.12

22,213.38

M-22 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

657.89

1,429.34

17,152.13

684.94

1,488.11

17,857.36

717.81

1,559.53

18,714.33

750.69

1,630.96

19,571.56

783.63

1,702.53

20,430.35 f

____L

817.81

1,776.79

21,321.48 ;

______ L

852.02

1,851.12 j

22,213.38

897.22

1,949.32

23,391.81

See footn otes at end o f table.

96

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 34. 1970 management salary rates (Biweekly, Monthly, and Annual), city employees.

M ilw a u k e e 1— Continued

“ 1 Biweekly, monthly, and annual salary rates

Pay i Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

M-23 Biweekly

Monthly

Annua1

$ 684.94

1,488.11

17,857.36

$ 717.81

1,559.53

18,714.33

$ 750.69

1,630.96

19,571.56

$ 783.63

1,702.53

20,430.35

| $ 817.81

1,776.79

21,321.48

$ 852.02

1,851.12

22,213.38

$ 897.22

1,949.32

23,391.81

$ 954.04

2,072.77

24,873.19

M-24 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

717.81

1,559.53

18,714.33

750.69

1,630.96

19,571.56

783.63

1,702.53

20,430.35

817.81

1,776.79

21,321.48

852.02

1,851.12

22,213.38

897.22

1,949.32

23,391.81

954.04

2,072.77

24,873.19

1,010.82

2,196.13

26,353.52

M-25 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

750.69

1,630.96

19,571.56

783.63

1,702.53

20,430.35

817.81

1,776.79

21,321.48

852.02

1,851.12

22,213.38

897.22

1,949.32

23,391.81

954.04

, 2,072.77

j 24,873.19

1,010.82

2,196.13

26,353,38

1,067.63

2,319.55

27,834.64

M-26 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

783.63

1,702.53

20,430.35

817.81

1,776.79

21,321.48

852.02

1,851.12

22,213.38

897.22

1,949.32

23,391.81

954.04

2,072.77

24,873.19

1,010.82

2,196.13

26,353.52

1,067.63

2,319.55

27,834.64

1,124.44

2,442.98

29,315.76

M-2 7 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

817.81

1,776.79

21,321.48

852.02

1,851.12

22,213.38

897.22

1,949.32

23,391.81

954.04

2,072.77

24,873.19

1,010.82

2,196.13

26,353.52

1,067.63

2,319.55

j 27,834.64

1,124.44

2,442.98

29,315.76

1,180.49

2,564.76

30,777.06

M-28 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual852.02

1,851.12

22,213.38

897.22

1,949.32

23,391.81

954.04

2,072.77

24,873.19

1,010.82

2,196.13

26,353.52

1,067.63

2,319.55

27,834.64

1,124.44

2,442.98

29,315.76

1,180.49

2,564.76

30,777.06

1,239.74

2,693.48

32,321.79

3

M-29 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

897.22

1,949.32

23,391.81

954.04

2,072.77

24,873.19

1,010.82

2,196.13

26,353.52

1,067.63

2,319.55

27,834.64

1,124.44

2,442.98

29,315.76

1,139.17

2,475.00

29,700.00

1,239.74

2,693.48

32,321.79

1,301.60

2,827.88

33,934.57

4

M-32 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

1,067.63

2,319.55

27,834.64

1,124.44

2,442.98

29,315.76

1,180.49

2,564.76

30,777.06

1,239.74

2,693.48

32,321.79

1,301.60

2,827.88

33,934.57

1,327.12

2,883.33

34,600.00

1,435.01

3,117.73

37,412.76

1,506.76

3,273.62

39,283.39

M-35 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

1,239.74

2,693.48

32,321.79

1,301.60

2,827.88

33,934.57

1,366.68

2,969.28

35,631.30

1,435.01

3,117.73

37,412.76

1,506.76

3,273.62

39,283.39

1,582.10

3,437.30

41,247.60

1,661.20

3,609.15

43,309.85

1,774.26

3,789.61

45,475.35

1 The sa la ry ord in an ce establish in g sa la ry rates fo r 1970 cov erin g g en era l em p lo y e e s prov id ed separate pay plans fo r

m anagem ent and nonm anagem ent e m p loy ees. (See table 33 fo r nonm anagem ent sa la ry r a t e s .) It a lso prov id ed fo r a

separate pay plan fo r n ea rly a ll p osition s co v e re d by the T ech n ician s, E n gin eers, and A r ch ite c ts o f M ilw aukee (T E A M ) 

co lle c tiv e bargain ing unit. (See table 35. )

The new ly esta blish ed m anagem ent m e rit review pay plan extended to a ll m anagem ent e m p loy ees who w e re m 1969 pay 

ran ges 13 and a bove. Step rate 6 w as the m axim um rate. Step ra tes 7 and 8, sp e cia l m e rit rev iew ra tes intended fo r e x ­

tra ord in a ry p e rfo rm a n ce , w ere not a ctivated during 1970.

P ay ranges 30, 31, 33, and 34 w ere not used.

A sep arate pay plan having 5 pay ranges co v e re d fire se r v ic e ranks below F ire Captain. (S e e table 38. )

H igher ranks w ere in clu ded in m anagem ent pay plan.

A sep arate pay plan having 7 pay ranges co v e re d p o lic e s e r v ice ranks below Lieutenant o f P o lic e . (S ee table 37. ) H igher 

ranks w ere in clu ded in m anagem ent pay plan.

2 C la sses in clu ded in pay range M -l in clu ded B rid geten d er F orem a n , C ustodial W ork S u p erv isor I, andM useum Guard III.

C la sse s in clu ded in pay range M -2 A r b o r ist III, A ssista n t Duplicating S e rv ice s S u perv isor, C ustodial W ork S u pervisor 

II, K ey Punch S u p erv isor, P ark F orem an , P arkin g R epairm an III, S chool C rossin g Guard S u perv isor, S treet S e rv ice s 

F orem a n I, and W ater D istribu tion F orem an II.

3 C la sse s in clu ded in pay range M -29 in cluded C hief E n g in eer-F ire, Chief of P o lice , City A ttorn ey, City E ngineer, 

Deputy C o m m issio n e r o f City D evelopm ent, Deputy C o m m ission er o f Health, Deputy C om m issio n e r o f P u blic W orks,

M un icipal P o rt D ire cto r, and T ax C o m m ission er.

4 C la sse s in clu ded in pay range M-32 in cluded C o m m ission er of Health, C om m ission er of P u blic W orks, and 

C om m issio n e r o f City D evelopm ent.

5 C la sse s in clu ded in pay range M -35 in clu ded M ayor.

97

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 35. 1969 salary rates for engineers and architects, city employees, Milwaukee

Biweekly, monthly, and annual salary rates

Pay

range Interval Step rates

1 2 3 4

5

45 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

$353.34

767.68

9,212.16

$369.78

803.39

9,640.68

$387.38

841.64

10,099.68

$404.99

879.88

10,558.56

$422.60

918.15

11,017.80

46 Bweekly

Monthly

Annual

404.99

879.88

10,558.56

422.60

918.15

11,017.80

438.42

952.53

11,430.36

455.57

989.77

11,877.24

472.70

1,027.00

12,324.00

47 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

455.57

989.77

11,877.24

472.70

1,027.00

12,324.00

495.37

1,076.24

12,914.88

518.04

1,125.51

13,506.12

544.03

1,181.98

14,183.76

48 Biweekly

Monthly

Annual

518.04

1,125.51

13,506.12

544.03

1,181.98

14,183.76

569.46

1,237.21

14,846.52

598.21

1,299.69

15,596.28

626.40

1,360.92

16,331.04

Note: A separate pay plan having 4 pay ranges was established in 1969 to provide special salary rates for engineers and

architects in positions included in the Technicians, Engineers, and Architects of Milwaukee (TEAM) collective

bargaining unit.

Table 36. 1970 salary rates for engineers and architects, city em ployees, M ilw aukee

Pay

range

L

Interval

Biweekly, monthly, and annual salary rates

Step rates

1 2 3 | 7

45 Biweekly $374.54 $391.96 $410.63 $429.28 1 $447.96

Monthly 813.74 851.59 892.14 932.67 j 973.24

Annual 9,764.88 10,219.08 10,705.68 11,192.04 11,678.88

46 Biweekly 429.28 447.96 464.73 482.90 501.06

Monthly 932.67 973.24 1,009.68 1,049.15 1,088.62

Annua1 11,192.04 11,678.88 12,116.16 12,589.80 13,063.44

47 Biweekly 482.90 501.06 525.09 549.13 576.68

Monthly 1,049.15 1,088.62 1,140.81 1,193.04 1,252.90

Annual 12,589.80 13,063.44 | 13,689.72 14,316.48 15,034.80

48 Biweekly 549.13 * 576.68 | 603.62 634.11 663.98

Monthly 1,193.04 ! 1,252.90 i 1,311.44 1,377.67 1 1,442.58

Annual 14,316.48 I 15,034.80

______________________l

15,737.28 16,532.04 17,310.96

Note: Classes included in pay ranges 45 through 48 were not eligible for a cost-of-living adjustment in 1970.

98

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 37. 1965-1970 police service salary rates (Biweekly, Monthly, Annual), Milwaukee

Pay range Biweekly salary rates

1965 1 1

1966

and

2/

1967 "

1968

to

3/

1970

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6

P-1 1965 $673.86 $703.16 $732.46 $769.08 $805.70 .

41 1966 694.08 724.25 754.43 792.15 829.87 -

41 1967 714.90 745.98 777.06 815.91 854.77

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-2 1965 537.14 I 561.55 585.96 615.26 644.56

42 1966 553.25 578.40 603.54 633.72 663.90

42 1967 569.85 1 595.75 621.65 652.73 683.82

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-3 1965 488.30 512.72 537.14 561.55 585.96

43 1966 502.95 528.10 553.25 578.40 603.54

43 1967 518.04 543.94 569.85 595.75 621.65

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-4 1965 466.33 488.30 512.72 537.14 561.55

44 1966 480.32 502.95 528.10 553.25 578.40

44 1967 494.73 518.04 543.94 569.85 595.75

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-5 1965 424.82 444.36 466.33 488.30 512.72

45 1966 437.56 457.69 480.32 502.95 528.10

45 1967 450.69 471.42 494.73 518.04 543.94

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-6 1965 385.76 j 405.29 424.82 444.36 I 466.33

46 1966 397.33 417.45 437.56 457.69 480.32

46 1967 409.25 1 429.97 450.69 471.42 J 494.73

- 1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-7 1965 351.58 368.67 385.76 405.29 424.82

47 1966 382.05 397.33 417.45 437.56 -

47 1967 393.51 409.25 429.97 450.69 -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-8 1965 336.93 351.58 368.67 385.76 405.29

48 1966 366.12 382.05 397.33 417.45 -

48 1967 377.10 393.51 409.25 429.97 -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-9 1965 324.55 340.00 355.46 . - -

49 1966 350.20 366.12 382.05 - - -

49 1967 360.71 377.10 393.51 - - -

49 1968 390.45 406.33 422.21 - - -

49 1969 / / 410.70 426.62 442.55 - - -

49 1970 & 420.29 436.21 452.14 - - -

49 1970 U 430.64 446.56 462.49 - - -

P-10 1965 293.96 307.63 '322.28 336.93 351.58 .

50 1966 334.29 350.20 366.12 - - -

50 1967 344.32 360.71 377.10 - - -

50 1968 374.58 390.45 406.33 - - -

50 1969 4/ 394.79 410.70 426.62 - - -

50 1970 404.38 420.29 436.21 - - -

50 1970 5/ 414.73 430.64 446.56 - - -

P-11 1965 310.13 324.55 340.00 - - -

51 1966 319.43 334.29 350.20 - - -

51 1967 329.01 344.32 360.71 ! - - -

51 1968 359.76 374.58 390.45 ' - - -

51 1969 / / 379.93 394.79 410.70 - - -

51 1970 & 389.52 404.38 420.29 - - -

51 1970 V 399.87 414.73 430.64 j * -

P-12 1965 296.73 310.13 324.55 . - -

52 1966 305.63 319.43 334.29 - - -

52 1967 314.80 329.01 344.32 - - -

52 1968 346.00 359.76 374.58 - - -

52 1969 / / 366.13 379.93 394.79 - - -

52 1970 V 375.72 389.52 404.38 - - -

52 1970 5/ 386.07 399.87 414.73 - - • -

P-13 1965 283.86 296.73 310.13 . . -

53 1966 292.38 305.63 319.43 - - -

53 1967 301.15 314.80 329.01 - - -

53 1968 332.79 346.00 359.76 - - -

53 1969 , / 352.88 366.13 379.93 - - -

53 1970 362.47 375.72 389.52 - - -

53 1970 5/ 372.82 386.07 399.87 - - -

P-14 1965 226.57 239.03 249.34 260.16 271.49 $ 283.86

54 1966 234.57 247.03 257.43 268.16 279.63 292.38

54 1967 242.57 255.03 265.34 276.20 288.02 301.15

54 1968 275.41 286.89 302.19 317.49 332.79 -

54 1969 , / 295.34 306.85 322.19 337.53 352.88 -

54 1970 4/ 304.93 316.44 331.78 347.12 362.47 -

54 1970 5/ 315.29 326.79 342.14 357.48 372.82

See footn otes at end o f ta ble.

99

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 37. 1965-70 police service salary rates (Biweekly, Monthly, Annual), Milwaukee— Continued

Pay range

Year

Biweekly salary rates i

1965 U

1966

and

1967 &

1968

to

3/

1970 -

— --- ------------------------------------- — ------ ------------- — --------------------------- 1

Step rates !

1 2 3 4 5 6 i

1

P-15 1965 $176.90 $184.48 $192.07 $200.69 $208.50

55 1966 184.90 192.48 ii 200.07 208.69 216.50 -

55 1967 192.90 200.48 208.07 216.69 224.50 -

55 1967 - 1 196.41 203.99 211.58 222.11 231.84 -

55 1968 207.35 214.90 222.47 234.90 246.51 -

55 1969/ / 227.09 234.67 242.26 254.72 266.36 -

55 1970 y 236.68 244.26 251.85 267.76 275.95 -

55 1970 5/ 247.04 254.62 262.21 274.66 286.31 ‘

Pay range Monthly salary rates

1966

and

1967— 7

1968

to

1970 3/

Year

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6

P-1 1965 $1,464.04 $1,527.70 $1,591.35 $1,670.92 $1,750.49 .

41 1966 1,507.97 1,573.52 1,639.09 1,721.04 1,802.99 -

41 1967 1,553.21 1,620.73 1,688.26 1,772.66 1,357.09 -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-2 1965 1,166.99 1,220.04 1,273.08 1,336.73 1,400.39 _

42 1966 1,202.00 1,256.64 1,311.26 1,373.83 1,942.40 -

42 1967 1,238.07 1,294.34 1,350.61 1,418.13 1,485.68 -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-3 1965 1,060.90 1,113.95 1,166.99 1,220.04 1,273.08 .

43 1966 1,092.72 1,147.36 1,202.00 1,256.64 1,311.26 -

43 1967 1,125.50 1,181.77 1,238.07 1,294.34 1,350.61 -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-4 1965 1,013.16 1,060.90 1,113.95 1,166.99 1,220.04

44 1966 1,043.55 | 1,092.72 1,147.36 1,202.00 1,256.64

44 1967 1,074.86 ' 1,125.50 1,181.77 1,238.07 1,294.34

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-5 1965 922.98 965.42 1,013.16 1,060.90 1,113.95

45 1966 950.65 994.39 1,043.55 1,092.72 1,147.36

45 1967 979.18 1,024.22 1,074.86 1,125.50 1,181.77

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-6 1965 838.11 880.55 922.98 965.42 1,013.16

46 1966 863.25 906.96 950.65 994.39 1,043.55

46 1967 889.14 934.16 979.18 1,024.22 1,074.86

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-7 1965 763.85 800.98 838.11 880.55 922.98

47 1966 830.05 863.25 906.96 950.65 -

47 1967 854.94 889.14 934.16 979.18 -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-8 1965 732.02 763.85 800.98 838.11 880.55

48 1966 795.44 830.05 863.25 ! 906.96 -

48 1967 819.29 854.94 889.14 934.16 -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-9 1965 705.13 738.70 772.28 . _ .

49 1966 760.85 795.44 830.05 - - -

49 1967 850.62 885.21 919.82 - - -

49 1968 850.62 885.21 919.82 - - -

49 1969 , / 892.29 926.88 961.49 - - -

49 1970 y 913.12 947.71 982.32 - - -

49 1970 5/ 935.62 970.21 1,004.82 - - -

P-10 1965 638.66 668.37 700.19 732.02 763.85 _

50 1966 726.28 760.85 795.44 - - -

50 1967 816.06 850.62 885.21 - - -

50 1968 816.06 850.62 885.21 - -

50 1969 L t

857.72 892.29 926.88 - -

50 1970 y 878.56 913.12 947.71 - -

50 1970 5/ 901.06 935.62 970.21 - -

P-11 1965 673.79 705.13 738.80 . .. _

51 1966 694.00 726.28 760.85 - - -

51 1967 783.77 816.06 850.62 - - -

51 1968 783.77 816.06 850.62 - -

51 1969 ,/ 825.44 857.72 892.29 - -

51 1970 y 846.27 878.56 913.12 - -

51 1970 5/ 868.77 901.06 935.62

See footn otes at end o f ta ble.

100

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 37. 1965-70 police service salary rates (Biweekly, Monthly, Annual), Milwaukee— Continued

Pay range

Year

Monthly salarv rates

1965

1966

and

1967 *

1968

to

3/

1970 "

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6

P-12 1965 $644.69 $673.79 $705.13 _ _ .

52 1966 664.02 694.00 726.28 - - -

52 1967 753.79 783.77 816.06 - - -

52 1968 753.79 783.77 816.06 - - -

52 1969 795.45 825.44 857.72 - - -

52 1970 816.29 846.27 878.56 - - -

52 1970 1/ 838.79 868.77 901.06 - -

P-13 1965 616.71 644.69 673.79 . _ .

53 1966 635.23 664.02 694.00 - - -

53 1967 725.00 753.79 783.77 - - -

53 1968 725.00 753.79 783.77 - - -

53 1969 766.67 795.45 825.44 - - -

53 1970 787.50 816.29 846.27 - - -

53 1970 810.00 838.79 868.77 - - -

P-14 1965 492.26 519.33 541.72 $565.22 $589.84 $ 616.71

54 1966 509.57 536.70 559.10 582.61 607.53 635.23

54 1967 600.00 625.00 658.33 691.67 725.00 -

54 1968 600.00 625.00 658.33 691.67 725.00 -

54 1969 / / 641.67 666.67 700.00 733.33 766.67 -

54 1 9 7 0 y 662.50 687.50 720.83 754.17 787.50 -

54 1970 5/ 685.00 710.00 743.33 776.67 810.00 -

P-15 1965 384.33 400.81 417.29 436.03 453.00 _

55 1966 // 401.72 418.19 434.68 453.40 470.37 -

55 1967 y 419.10 435.57 452.06 470.79 487.75 -

55 1967 5/ 426.72 443.19 459.68 482.57 503.71 -

55 1968 451.72 468.19 484.68 511.74 537.04 -

55 1969 / / 493.38 509.85 526.34 553.40 578.71 -

55 1970 514.22 530.69 547.18 574.24 599.54 -

55 1970 5/ 536.72 553.19 569.68 596.74 622.04

Pay range

Year

Annual salary rates

1965 y

1966

and

19672/

1968

to

1970 -3/

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6

P-1 1965 $17,568.50 $18,332.35 $19,096.20 $20,051.01 $21,005.82

41 1966 18,095.66 18,882.23 19,669.07 20,652.48 21,635.90 -

41 1967 18,638.46 19,448.76 20,259.06 21,271.94 22,285.08 -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-2 1965 14,003.88 14,640.42 15,276.96 16,040.81 16,804.66 _

42 1966 14,424.02 15,079.71 15,735.15 16.521.99 17,308.82 -

42 1967 14,856.80 15,532.05 16,207.30 17,017.60 17,828.16 -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-3 1965 12,730.80 13,367.34 14,003.88 14,640.42 15,276.96 .

43 1966 13,112.63 || 13,768.32 14,424.02 15,079.71 15,735.15 -

43 1967 13,506.04 14,821.29 14,856.80 15,532.05 16,207.30 -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-4 1965 12,157.91 12.730.80 13,367.34 14,003.88 14,640.42 .

44 1966 12,522.63 13,112.63 13,768.32 14,424.02 15,079.71 -

44 1967 12,898.32 13,506.04 14,181.29 14,856.80 15,532.05 -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-5 1965 11,075.80 11,585.03 12,157.91 12,730.80 13,367.34 .

45 1966 11,407.81 11,932.63 12,522.63 13,112.63 13,768.32 -

45 1967 11,750.13 11 12,290.59 12,898.32 13,506.04 14,181.29 -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-6 1965 10,057.33 10,566.66 11,075.80 11,585.03 12,157.91 .

46 1966 10,358.96 10,883.52 11,407.81 11,932.63 12,522.63

46 1967 10,669.73 11,209.93 11,750.13 12,290.59 12,898.32 -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-7 1965 9,166.18 9,611.75 10,057.33 10,566.56 11,075.80 .

47 1966 9,960.59 10,358.96 10,883.52 11,407.81 -

47 1967 10,259.37 10,669.73 11,209.93 11,750.13 -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

! i !

i

See footn otes at end o f ta ble.

101

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 37. 1965-70 police service salary rates (Biweekly, Monthly, Annual), Milwaukee— Continued

Pay range Annual salary rates

1965

1966

and

1967 -2/

1968

to

1970

Year

Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6

P-8 1965 $8,784.25 $9,166.18 $9,611.75 $10,057.33 $10,566.56

48 1966 9,545.27 9,960.96 10,358.96 10,883.52 - -

48 1967 9,831.54 10,259.37 10,669.73 11,209.93 - -

1968-70 See footnote 3/

P-9 1965 8,461.56 8,864.40 9,267.36 _ . _

49 1966 9,130.21 9,545.27 9,960.59 - - _

49 1967 10,207.45 10,662.51 11,037.83 - - -

49 1468 10,207.45 10,622.51 11,037.83 - - -

49 1969 // 10,707.45 11,122.51 11,537.83 - - -

49 1970 & 10,957.45 11,372.51 11,787.83 - _ _

49 1970 5/ 11,227.45 11,642.51 12,057.83 - - -

P-10 1965 7,663.94 8,020.40 8,402.33 8,784.25 9,166.18 _

50 1966 8,715.42 9,130.21 9,545.27 - - -

50 1967 9,792.66 10,207.45 10,622.51 - - .

50 1968 9,792.66 10,207.45 10,622.51 - - -

50 1 9 6 9 // 10,292.66 10,707.45 11,122.51 - . _

50 1970 4/ 10,542.66 10,957.45 11,372.51 - - _

50 1970 5/ 10,812.66 11,227.45 11,642.51 - ' -

P-11 1965 8,085.48 8,461.56 8,864.40 _

51 1966 8,328.00 8,715.42 9,130.21 - - -

51 1967 9,405.24 9,792.66 10,207.45 - - -

51 1968 9,405.24 9,792.66 10,207.45 - - _

51 1 9 6 9 ,/ 9,905.24 10,292.66 10,707.45 - . .

51 1970 y 10,155.24 10,542.66 10,957.45 - - .

51 1970 5/ 10,425.24 10,812.66 11,227.45 - - -

P-12 1965 7,736.28 8,085.48 8,461.56 . _ _

52 1966 7,968.21 8,328.00 8,715.42 - -

52 1967 9,045.45 9,405.24 9,792.66 - - _

52 1968 9,045.45 9,405.24 9,792.66 - - _

52 1 9 6 9 / / 9,545.45 9,905.24 10,292.66 - . _

52 1970 y 9,795.45 10,155.24 10,542.66 - - -

52 1970 5/ 10,065.45 10,425.24 10,812.66 - - -

P-13 1965 7,400.52 7,736.28 8,085.48 _ _ .

53 1966 7,622.76 7,968.21 8,328.00 - _ _

53 1967 8,700.00 9,045.45 9,405.24 - - -

53 1968 8,700.00 9,045.45 9,405.24 - - -

53 1969 9,200.00 9,545.45 9,905.24 - - -

53 1970 9,450.00 9,795.45 10,155.24 - - .

53 1970 9,720.00 10,065.45 10,425.24 - - -

P-14 1965 5,907.09 6,231.96 6,500.64 6,782.64 7,078.08 $7,400.52

54 1966 6,114.79 6,440.43 6,709.22 6,991.31 7,290.35 7,622.76

54 1967 7,200.00 7,500.00 7,900.00 8,300.00 8,700.00 .

54 1968 7,200.00 7,500.00 7,900.00 8,300.00 8,700.00 -

54 1 9 6 9 // 7,700.00 8 ,000.00 8,400.00 8,800.00 9,200.00 -

54 1970 y 7,950.00 8,250.00 8,650.00 9,050.00 9,450.00 -

54 1970 5/ 8,220.00 8,520.00 8,920.00 9,320.00 9,720.00 -

P-15 1965 4,611.96 4,809.72 5,007.48 5,232.36 5,436.05 _

55 1 9 6 6 // 4,820.61 5,018.23 5,216.11 5,440.85 5,644.46 -

55 1967 y 5,029.18 5,226.80 5,424.68 5,649.42 5,853.04 -

55 1967 1/ 5,120.61 5,318.23 5,516.11 5,790.85 6,044.46 -

55 1968 5,420.61 5,618.23 5,816.11 6,140.85 6,444.46 -

55

1 9 6 9 l!

5,920.61 6,118.23 6,316.11 6,640.85 6,944.46 -

55 1970 y 6,170.61 6,368.23 6,566.11 6,890.85 7,194.46 -

55 1970 2/ 6,440.61 6,638.23 6,836.11 7,160.85 7,464.46

I________:______

1 A sep arate sa la ry schedule having 15 pay ran ges (num bered P-1 through P-15) w as adopted in 1965. P rio r to

1965 p o lice se r v ic e p o sitio n s w ere allo ca ted to the sa la ry schedule coverin g gen eral em p lo y ees. (See ta b les 26-29. )

2 15 pay ran ges fo rm erly num bered P-1 through P-15 in 1965 renum bered 41 through 55.

3 Pay ran ges 41 through 48 coverin g m anagem ent p osition s elim in ated in 1968. P o sitio n s in form er pay ran ges

41 through 48 w ere r ea llo ca ted to pay ranges in sa la ry schedule coverin g gen era l em p lo y ees. (See ta b les :5° -3 2 *) In

1970, p o lice s e r v ic e m anagem ent p o sitio n s (ranks of Lieutenant and above), which w ere rea llo ca ted m 1968 to the

sa la ry schedule coverin g gen eral em p lo y ees, w ere assig n ed to the new 1970 m anagem ent sa la ry schedule (See table 34. )

4 E ffective pay period 1 through 13.

5 E ffective pay period 14 through 26.

102

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 38. 1966-70 fire service salary rates (Biweekly, Monthly, Annual), Milwaukee 1

—

!

Biweekly salary rates

Pay

range Year Step rates

1 2 3 4 5 6

70 1967 $314.08 $327.90 $342.78 $358.74 $374.69 _

1968 338.64 352.43 367.27 383.18 399.23 -

1969 354.91 368.73 383.62 399.57 415.67 -

1970 j 364.50 378.32 393.20 409.16 425.26 -

\ 9 7 0 - — 384.19 401.08 417.96 434.85 450.03 $466.47

71 1966 273.16 284.94 297.52 310.60 324.68 -

1967 288.32 300.77 314.08 327.90 342.78

1968 312.95 325.37 338.64 352.43 367.41

1969 ? /

329.15 341.61 354.91 368.73 383.76

1970-/ 338.74 351.19 364.50 378.32 393.35

1970 - 348.33 360.78 374.09 387.91 402.94

72 1966 254.59 265.34 277.12 289.70 302.78

1967 Pay range 72 not used in 1967

1968 Pay range 72 not used in 1968

1969 314.63 325.46 336.83 349.28 362.73

1970-^/ 324.22 335.05 346.41 358.87 372.32

1970 3/ 333.80 344.64 356.00 368.46 381.91

73 1966 252.16 262.41 273.16 284.94 297.52 -

1967 266.12 276.95 288.32 300.77 314.08 -

1968 290.82 301.62 312.95 325.37 338.79 -

1969 306.96 317.79 329.15 341.61 355.06 -

19701/ 316.54 327.38 338.74 351.19 364.65 -

1970 2^ 326.13 336.97 348.33 360.78 374.24 -

74 1966 242.39 252.16 262.41 273.16 284.74 -

1967 255.79 266.12 276.95 288.32 300.77 -

1968 275.41 290.82 301.62 312.95 325.25 -

1969 295.34 306.96 317.79 329.15 341.75 -

1970 2/ 304.93 316.54 327.38 338.74 351.34 -

1970 3/ 315.29 326.13 336.97 348.33 360.93

Monthly salary rat es

Salary steps

1 2 3 4 5 6

70 1967 $682.35 $712.39 $744.71 $779.38 $814.03

1968 737.75 767.79 800.12 834.79 869.76 -

1969 771.09 801.12 833.45 868.12 903.09 -

1 9 7 0 % . 791.92 821.95 854.28 888.95 923.92 -

19702' 834.70 871.39 908.07 944.76 977.74 $1,013.46

71 1966 593.48 619.08 646.41 674.83 705.42 .

1967 626.39 653.44 682.35 712.39 714.71 -

1968 681.79 708.85 737.75 767.79 800.44 -

1969 ,/ 715.13 742.18 771.09 801.12 833.77 -

1970 ^ 735.96 763.01 791.92 821.95 854.60 -

1970 2/ 756.79 783.85 812.75 842.79 875.44

72 1966 553.13 576.48 602.08 629.41 657.83

1967 Pay range 72 not used in 1967

1968 Pay range 72 not used in 1968

1969 ? !

683.56 707.10 731.79 758.85 788.07

1970 f. 704.40 727.94 752.63 779.68 808.91

1970 2' 725.23 748.77 773.46 800.51 829.74

73 1966 547.86 570.13 593.48 619.08 646.41 .

1967 578.16 601.70 626.39 653.44 682.35 -

1968 633.56 657.10 681.79 708.85 738.07 -

1969 ,/ 666.90 690.44 715.13 742.18 771.41 -

1970 I' 687.73 711.27 735.96 763.01 792.24 -

1970 2' 708.56 732.10 756.79 783.85 813.07

74 1966 526.63 547.86 570.13 593.48 619.08 _

1967 555.72 578.16 601.70 626.39 653.44 -

1968 600.00 633.56 657.*0 681.79 709.17 -

1969 641.67 666.90 690.44 715.13 742.50 -

1970 l l 662.50 687.73 711.27 735.96 763.33 -

1970 3/ 685.00 708.56 732.10 756.79 784.17 _

_____L

See footnotes at end of tab le.

103

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 38. 1966-70 fire service salary rates (Biweekly, Monthly, Annual), Milwaukee— Continued

f

Annual salary rates

Pay

Step rates

Year

1 2 3 4 5 6

70 1967 $8,188.18 $8,548.58 $8,936.55 $9,352.60 $9,768.38

1968 8,853.03 9,213.43 9,601.40 10,017.45 10,437.08 -

1969 9,253.03 9,613.43 10,001.40 10,417.45 10,837.08

1970 2/ 9,503.03 9,863.43 10,251.40 10,667.45 11,087.08 -

19702/ 10,016.38 10,456.73 10,896.81 11,337.16 11,732.93 $12,161.54

71 1966 7,121.79 7,428.91 7,756.89 8,097.91 8,464.99 ,

1967 7,516.67 7,841.30 8,188.18 6,548.58 8,936.55 -

1968 8,181.52 8,506.15 8,853.03 9,213.43 9,605.25 .

1969 8,581.52 8,906.15 9,253.03 9,613.43 10,005.25

1970 2/ 8,831.52 9,156.15 9,503.03 9,863.43 10,255.25

1970 3/ 9,081.52 9,406.15 9,753.03 10,113.43 10,505.25

72 1966 6,637.53 6,911.79 7,224.91 7,552.89 7,893.91

1967 Pay range 72 not used in 1967

1968 Pay range 72 not used in 1968

1969 8,202.76 8,485.25 8,781.52 11 9,106.15 9,456.88

|! 1970 i'' 8,452.76 8,735.25 9,031.52 9,356.16 9.7Q6.88

197C ?J 8,702.76 8,985.25 9,281.52 9,606.15 9,956.88

73 |! 1966 6,574.29 6,841.53 7,121.79 ! 7,428.91 7,756.89

I

1 1967 6,937.91 7,220.40 7,516.67 1 7,841.30 8,188.18

1968 7,602.76 7,885.25 8,181.52 |I 8,506.15 8,856.88

1969 8,002.76 8,285.25 8,581.52 8,906.15 9,256.88

1970 l - 8,252.76 8,535.25 8,831.52 9,156.15 9,506.88

1970 2/ 8,502.76 8,785.25 9,081.52 9,406.15 9,756.88

74 1966 6,319.58 6,574.29 6,841.53 7,121.79 7,428.91

1967 6,668.68 6,937.91 7,220.40 7,516.67 7,841.30

1968 7,200.00 7,602.76 7,885.25 8,181.52 8,510.00

1969 7,700.00 8,002.76 8,285.25 8,581.52 8,910.00

19701/ 7,950.00 1 8,252.76 8,535.25 8,831.52 9,160.00

1970 2/ 8,220.00 8,502.76 8,785.25 9,081.52 9,410.00

1 E ffective June 12, 1966 fou r pay ran ges num bered 71 through 74 w ere esta blish ed fo r fir e se r v ice person n el

b elow F ire Captain rank.

In 1967, a separate pay plan having fiv e pay ranges num bered 70 through 74 w as esta blish ed fo r fir e se r v ice 

person n el cov e rin g ranks o f F ire fig h te r through Fn e Captain.

2 E ffe ctive pay p e rio d s 1 through 13, 1970.

3 E ffective pay p e rio d s 14 through 26, 197 0

104

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(A ve ra g e & traigh t-tim e w eekly h ou rs and m onthly earnings fo r selected c la s s e s , M ilw aukee, W iscon sin , M unicipal G overnm ent)

Table 39. Earnings of selected classes of municipal employees, Milwaukee, July 1970

Average NUMBER OF WORKERS RECEIVING STRalGHT-TIME MONTHLY EaRNINGS OFN L V 2 / i £ & $ * $ $ $ 3 $ $ 5 I $ $

$

$ ^ $ 1 $ T “—

“of 41 Monthly \ $ 0 U7$ $ 0 0 $ 2 $ ' 5 $ 0 5 7 $ 6 0 0 6 2 5 6 $ 0 6 7 5 7 0 0 7 $ 0 8 0 0 8 $ 0 9 0 0 9 5 0 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 5 0 1 ,1 0 0 l , i 5 o 1 ,2 0 0 1 ,? $ 0 1 ,3 0 0 l , ? 5 0 1,1-00

workers hours earnings and

(Standard) (Mean) arm

U75 $ 0 0 $ 2 $ 5 $ o 57$ 6 0 0 6 2 5 6$C 6 7 5 7 0 0 7 $ 0 8 0 0 8 5 0 9 0 0 950 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 5 0 1 ,1 0 0 i , i $ o 1 ,2 0 0 1 ,2 $ 0 V o o 1 ,3 5 0 l ,U o o over

3 UO.O

$

763 1 2

3 U o .o 8 9 1 2 . 1

3 1 UO.O 6 3 5 5 7 7 8 2 2

5 6 U o .o 718 _ _ _ _ _ 1 3 2 2 32 1 5 1 . I

7 U o .o 8 1 8 2 5

1

3 U o .o 926 i 2

17 U o .o 818 u 1 1 2

2 U o .o Q82 2

2 U o .o 1*018 2

- - - - - - -

1 U o .o 1 ,1 9 9 i

2 5 U o .o 9 0 9 3 l o 2 1 0

2 9 U o .o 1 ,0 7 0 U 2 23 - . - _ . . -

2 9 U o .o 1 ,2 3 2 1 - U - 2U - -

16 U o .o 1 ,U 2 7 1 - l * 1U

10 U o .o 506 1 3 2 U

2 0 u o .o I 5 8 5 - - - ”1 $ 3 1 1

37 U o .o i 6U1 - ■ " 3 9 2 2 1 1 1

3 1 U o .o j 7 0 5 _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 1

1 2? u

5 9 U o .o 5 0 1 _ 2i* 3 3 2

8 0 U o .o $82 _ _ _ _ 3U 15 3 1

U7 U o .o 6 5 5 _ _ _ _ _ 3 6 5 25 7 I

28 U o .o 736 U 1 1 13

10U U o .o U92 . 8 0 18 6

18L U o .o 576 27 67 15 75

28 U o .o 6U7 _ _ _ _ _ _ 8 2 16 i 1

U U o .o 6 1 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 _ 1

1 U o .o 702 1

U U o .o 75U 2 2

U u o .o 6 1 9 _ . _ _ _ _ U

2 UO.O 75U 1 I

3 UO.O 9 0 1 1 l 1

17 UO.O 602 _ _ _ 1 _ 5 i"o 1 _ _ _ _

1 9 u o .o i 70 1 u U 2 U 5

23 UC.C 90S 3 "U 16

12 U o .o : 1 ,0 6 3 2 1' 9" _ _

12 u o .o j 6oU _ _ _ _ ,U 8 _

25 UO.O 6 96 _ _ . _ _ _ _ 8 u _ ■8 5" _

7 U o .o 910 2 5 . _

3U U o .o 608 1 8 19 6

31 U o .o 682 9 8 "5 5 U

U2 u o .o 916 "2 9 31 _ _ _ _ _ _

32 u o .o 1 ,C 7 3 _ _ _ . _ 3 27 _ . 8

. .

10 u o .o 1 ,2 3 0 i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

UU U o .o 733 5 1U l 25T

8 UO.O U83 _ 7 1

15 UO.O $72 _ _ _ 1 8 3 3

3 U o .o 6 5 3 1 1 l

15 U o .o 6 9 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 8 7 _ _ _

U9 U o .o 7 3 9 31 11 7"

30 U o .o 8 7 8 1 - - | 1

1 1 1 17

X

. . _ . _ .

3 UO.O 1 ,0 2 9 1 | - * . . _ . _ _

100 UO.O i 503 13 35 2U 28 i 1 -

1 U o .o I 60 2

1

1 -1

i i

i

1

1

Occupational group

and

Class title

NON-MANAGEMENT

WHITE-COLLAR

Accountant I -----------------

Accountant II ---------------

Account clerk I --------------

Account clerk II ------------

Administrative assistant I —

Administrative assistant II -

Chemist I --------------------

Chemist II __________________

Chemist III _________________

Chemist IV--------------------

Chemist V _____________________

Civil engineer I ------------

Civil engineer II ------------

Civil engineer III ----------

Civil engineer IV ------------

Clerk I ----------------------

Clerk II ----------------------

Clerk III --------------------

Clerk ^ ----------------------

Clerk stenographer I --------

Clerk stenographer II -------

Clerk stenographer III -----

Clerk stenographer IV -------

Clerk typist I ---------------

Clerk typist II -------------

Clerk typist III ------------

Computer operator I --------

ComputeT- operator I T --------------

Compute- operator III -------

Computer programmer I -------

Computer programmer II -----

Computer programmer III -----

Draftsman I ------------------

Draftsman II ----------------

Draftsman IV -----------------

Draftsman V ------------------

Engineering draftsman I -----

Engineering draftsman II ---

Engineering draftsman IV ---

Engineering technician I ---

Engineering technician II —

Engineering technician IV —

Engineering technician V ---

Engineering technician VI---

jraduate nurse I ------------

Keypunch operator I ---------

Keypunch operator II -------

Keypunch operator III -------

Librarian I ------------------

Librarian II -----------------

Librarian III ---------------

Librarian IV -----------------

Library aide I -------------

Library aide II -------------

bee footn otes at end o f table,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 39. Earnings of selected classes of municipal employees, Milwaukee, July 1970— Continued

(A v e ra g e stra ig h t-tim e w eekly h ou rs and m onthly earn in gs fo r selected cla sse s,

Occupational group

and

Class title

NON-MANAGEMENT

WHITE-COLLAR (Continued)

Library assistant ----------------------

Licensed practical nurse ------------

Physician -------------------------------

Public health nurse I ------------------

Public health nurse II ---------------

Public health physician I--------------

Telephone operator --------------------

NOM-MANAGEMENT

BLUE-COLLAR

Automotive mechanic--------------------

Bridge nngrator ------------------------

City 1 • rer (regular)------------------

Custodial worker I -------------------

Custodial worker II - city laborer----

Custodial worker III -------------------

Maintenance mechanic -------------------

Museum guard I -------------------------

Museum guard II ------------------------

Operating engineer I -------------------

Operating engineer II -----------------

Sanitation laborer --------------------

Sewer laborer -------------------------

special equipment operator ------------

fruckdriver (under 3 % tons) ----------

Fruckdriver (3^ tons and over) -------

Truckloader (combustiole)--------------

Water system trench laborer ----------

MANAGEMENT

Accountant III -------------------------

Accountant IV---------------------------

Administrative assistant III ---------

Administrative assistant IV ----------

Automotive mechanic f o r e m a n ----------

Automotive mechanic supervisor--------

Civil engineer V ----------------------

Graduate nurse II ----------------------

Librarian V -----------------------------

Management accountant I ---------------

Management accountant I I --------------

Management administrative assistant IHanagement administrative assistant II

Management chemist I I ------------------

Management civil engineer IV----------

Management librarian IV --------------

Museum guard III -----------------------

Physician II ---------------------------

Pnysician III -------------------------

Public health nurse III --------------

Public health nurse IV ---------------

Public health physician II ------------

Number

of

workers

A v e r a g e

y 1

Weekly 

hours I

(Standard)

1/

M o n t h l y e a r n i n g s ( M e a n )

28 L o . o ;" 6 2 3

1 3 h O .O \I

3 8 7

L L

- I

h O . O i • 3 1 ?

3 1 L o . o 819

1 3 L o . o 1 , 7 2 1

1 3 L o . o 3 9 1

3 1 L o . o 7 L 3

7 7 L o . o 6 9 0

2 6 0 L o . o i 6 3 6

3 8 L o . o ! 3 L 2

1 0 1 L O . O ! 6 2 8

1 9 L o . o 6 L 2

h i L O . O I; 7 2 L

16 L O . O ; 6 2 3

3 u O . O 1 6 3 9

2 0 L O . O 8 1 8

7 L o . o 8 8 8

3 2 3 L o . o 6 3 8

Ih L O . O 6 3 7

L 5 L o . o 7 6 5

1 1 1 L O . O 11 6 9 1

3 0 0 L o . o 7 1 L

3h2 L O . O 6 5 7

3 3 L O . O 6 7 6

3 L O . O 1 , 1 3 1

3 L o . o 1 , 3 1 2

1 0 L O . O 1 , 1 6 7

3 L o . o 1 , 3 6 9

6 L o . o 9 8 L

2 L o . o 1 , 1 9 8

8 L o . o 1,622

6 L o . o 836

6 L o . o 1 , 3 6 9

1 1 L o . o 8 5 2

3 L o . o 9 5 6

1 6 L o . o 8 5 6

1 7 L o . o 9 5 7

2 L o . o 9 L 3

1 L L o . o 1 , U 5 0

1 2 L o . o 1 ,1 1 6

1 L o . o 7 3 8

0 L o . o 1 , 7 2 9

1 L o . o 1 , 9 L 9

1 3 L o . o 9 8 5

2 L o . o 1 , 0 8 0

3 L o . o 1 , 9 L 9

' L 5 o

and

mder

L 7 5

L 7 5

3 o o

3 o o

3 2 3

M ilw aukee, W iscon sin , M unicipal G overnm ent)

NUMBER OF ..URKERS RECEIVING SlknlGHT-TlME MONTHLY F.ARNTNGS 0F-

:- - - r - - - r - - - 1? - - - n s - - - n s - - n - - - r * - - - r r ~ n n *

* 5 T

5 5 0

$ 5 5 o

5 7 5

* 5 7 5

600

$ 6 o o

625

'625

6 5 0

' ' 6 $ r t

6 7 5

* * 6 7 5

7 0 0

T S - -

v 7 o r »

7 5 0

* 7 5 0

8 0 0

I T - - R o n

8 5 0

"‘ 8 5 0

9 0 0

TF- - -

V 9 0 O

950

* < ? 5 o

L . 0 0 0

1,000

1.050

T = - -

1 , 0 * 0

1 . 1 0 0

1 , 1 0 0

l . l 5 o

l , i 5 o

1.200

1 , 2 0 0

i a $ o

i , 2 5 0

1 * 3 .0 0

1,300

1 * 3 5 0

1 , 3 5 0

1 . L 0 0

l , L o o

and

o v e r

3 1 L 2 9

- 3 7 5

2 1 2 3 0

2 2 1 6 1 3 - V '

- 1 3 _

2 L 7

3 6 L 2

- - - L 7 - 6 60 ■ ■ ■ ~

- - 3 8 5 1 L 8 2 3 - 1

2 L L

- 7 9 1 0 7 3 2

- - - 2 3 1 1 3

- - - - 2 - 5 3 2 8 _

- 2 1 2 1 3

3

7 “

- - - L L - 6 2 6 6 1 L 2 ■ " ■ ■

- - - - 8 9 5 7

1 L L

- - - 1 - 5 10L 1

5 2 9 5

- - - L 5 22 2 7 L - 1

2 3 L 8

2

- _ 3

. - - - -

1 ~ ■ " 2 -

1 1 1 7 ~ ■ '

* 3

1 ■ " " 5 ■ ■ ■ " ~ “

I / 8 _

3 3

5 6

- - - - - - - “ “ 1 - L ~ “ “ “ -

1 L 1 0 - 1 '

6 1 1

1 1 - “ ~ ■ ■ ' " " 6 / _

2 “ 1 1

- - - - - - - - ' - 1 1 10 ■ ■ '

7/

~ 9

1

3 1 1 1 - ~

1 1 ■ " 8 / '

“ 3

Set- footnotes at end of table,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Tab le 3 9 . Earnings of selected classes of m unicipal em ployees, M ilw aukee, Ju ly 1970— Continued

(A v e r a g e str a ig h t-tim e w eek ly h ours and m onthly earnin gs for selected c la s s e s , M ilwaukee, W isconsin, M unicipal G overnm ent)

Occupational group

and

Class title

Number

of

workers

Average NUMBER OF WORKERS RECEIVING STRAIGHT-TIME MONTHLY EARNINGS OFwieUy

hours

(Standard)

y

Monthly

earnings

(Mean)

$

kSo

and

under

b75

*k75

5oo

$

5oo

525

525

55o

$

550

575

$

575

600

* z

600

625

$

625

650

%

650

675

$

675

700

&

700

750

$ „

750

800

* .800

850

$

850

900

$

900

950

$

950

1,000

$

1,000

1,050

$ „

i,c5o

1,10 0

$.

1,100

1,15 0

$

1,150

1,200

$

1,200

i,?5o

f

1,250

1,300

$

1,300

1,350

$

1,350

l,k00

1 I I

POLICE SERVICE

2L

11:9

21

26

1,578

1L6

15

25

12

56

n o

5

728

102

26

U

12

ioU

38

7

27

9

13

38

2L

O O O O O O O HOr-tHOHi-l O O O O O O O O O OO

iiiiiii iiiiiiiii ii

$

1,212

882

1,012

1,009

772

895

777

1,216

827

1,008

870

1,013

772

813

1.071

1,192

1,163

1,091

98U

1,053

1.071

1,132

1,15U

1,121

l,0k3

1 2 L 17

18 8 123

Lieutenant of detectives -------------

3 2 3

150

1

287

U

1,067

1

7U

-3

9

12

Police sergeant -----------------------

Policewoman----------------------------

FIRE SERVICE

Battalion chief ----------------------

Fire alarm dispatcher

23 120

u 1 20

Fire captain 2 2 52

Fire lieutenant 17 93

F-i pehnst. pi 1 r>+. _ . _ 5

Firefighter ---------------------------

Motor pump operator ------------------

Prevailing Hourly

Construction Trade Rate Classes

Carpenter .....

Hourly

6.16

6.86

6.69

6.28

5.66

6.06

6.16

6.51

6.6L

6.L5

6.00

1U 96 618

26

"u 0 arpenter foreman

Crane operator ----------------------

Electrical mechanic -----------------

F.^rtrl manhani n helper

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

38 _

ioU

7

27

9

12

13

- -

: :

-

........

Pointer

Pointer, bridge and iron

.^ue)* ifiaenn

Tractor, bulldozer, end loader, or

grader operator (over U0 H.P.)-----

Tractor operator (under U0 H.P.)----

2U

38

- - - - - -

Standard hours reflect the workweek for which employees receive their regular straight-time salaries (exclusive of pay for overtime at regular and/or premium rates).

The mean is computed for each class by totalling the monthly salaries of all workers and dividing by the number of workers. Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts.

Workers were distributed as follows: 1U at $1,L00 to $1,U50*

1 at $l,k50 to $1,500} 2 at $1,550 to $1,600; and 10 at $1,750 to $1,800.

1 at $1,550 to $1,600} and 7 at $1,600 to $1,650.

2 at $l,k00 to $l,k50} and 9 at $1,U50 to $1,500.

1 at $l,k50 to $1,500} 1 at $1,700 to $1,750, and 7 at $1,750 to $1,800.

3 at $1,900 to $1,950.

Workers were distributed as follows:

Workers were distributed as follows:

Workers were distributed as follows:

Workers were distributed as follows:

Workers were distributed as follows:

NOTE: Dashes indicate no employees reported in class.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix A. Section 111.70

Introductory Statement

The Wisconsin State Legislature has enacted the following statute establishing the rights of municipal employees to organize and join

labor organizations, and of public employee labor organizations to confer and negotiate with municipal employers. The provisions of

this statute fall within the jurisdiction of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, still referred to herein as the "Wisconsin

Employment Relations Board." This statute applies to the City of Milwaukee and provides the legal basis for negotiations between the

City and its organized employees represented by certified collective bargaining agents.

CHAPTER 111

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS

SUBCHAPTER IV.

RIGHT OF MUNICIPAL QiPLOYES TO ORGANIZE AND JOIN LABOR

ORGANIZATIONS; BARGAINING IN MUNICIPAL EMPLOYMENT

111.70 Municipal employment.

(1) DEFINITIONS. When used in this section:

(a) "Municipal employer" means any city, county, village, town, metropolitan sewerage district, school district or any other

political subdivision of the state.

(b) "Municipal employe" means any employe of a municipal employer except city and village policemen, sheriff's deputies, and

county traffic officers.

(c) "Board" means the Wisconsin employment relations board.

(2) RIGHTS OF MUNICIPAL EMPLOYES. Municipal employes shall have the right of self-organization, to affiliate with labor organizations

of their own choosing and the right to be represented by labor organizations of their own choice in conferences and negotiations

with their municipal employers or their representatives on question of wages, hours and conditions of employment, and such employes

shall have the right to refrain from any and all such activities.

(3) PROHIBITED PRACTICES.

(a) Municipal employers, their officers and agents are prohibited from:

1. Interfering with, restraining or coercing any municipal employe in the exercise of the right provided in sub. (2).

2. Encouraging or discouraging membership in any labor organization, employe agency, committee, association or representtion plan by discrimination in regard to hiring, tenure or other terms or conditions of employment.

3. Prohibiting a duly authorized representative of an organization certified pursuant to sub. (4) (d) or (j) from appearing

before any governmental unit or body but nothing herein shall prevent the enactment of reasonable rules adopted by the

employer necessary to maintain continuity of public service or the adoption of a negotiated agreement on the subject.

(b) Municipal employes individually or in concert with others are prohibited from:

1. Coercing, intimidating or interfering with municipal employes in the enjoyment of their legal rights including those set

forth in sub. (2).

2. Attempting to induce a municipal employer to coerce, intimidate or interfere with a municipal employe in the enjoyment

of his legal rights including those set forth in sub. (2).

(c) It is a prohibited practice for any person to do or cause to be done, on behalf of or in the interest of any municipal

employer or employe, or in connection with or to influence the outcome of any controversy, as to employment relations, any

act prohibited by pars, (a) and (b).

(4) POWERS OF THE BOARD. The board shall be governed by the following provisions relating to bargaining in municipal employment:

(a) Prevention of prohibited practices. Section 111.07 shall govern procedure in all cases involving prohibited practices

under this subchapter.

(b) Mediation. The board may function as a mediator in disputes between municipal employes and their employers upon the request

of both parties, and the parties may select a mediator by agreement or mutual consent.

(d) Collective bargaining units. Whenever a question arises between a municipal employer and a labor union as to whether the union

represents the employes of thO employer, either the union or the municipality may petition the board to conduct an election among

said employes to determine whether they desire to be represented by a labor organization. Proceedings in representation cases

shall be in accordance with ss. 111.02 (6) and 111.05 insofar as applicable, except that where the board finds that a proposed

unit includes a craft the boardshall exclude such craft from the unit. The board shall not order an election among employes in

a craft unit except on separate petition initiating representation proceedings in such craft unit.

(e) Fact finding. Fact finding may be initiated in the following circumstances: 1. If after a reasonable period of negotiation

the parties are deadlocked, either party or the parties jointly may initiate fact finding; 2. Where an employer or union fails

or refuses to meet and negotiate in good faith at reasonable times in a bona fide effort to arrive at a settlement.

(f) Same. Upon receipt of a petition to initiate fact finding, the board shall make an investigation and determine whether or not

the condition set forth in par. (e) 1 or 2 has been met and shall certify the results of said investigation. If the certification

requires that fact finding be initialed,the board shall appoint from a list established by the board a qualified disinterested

person or 3-member panel when jointly requested by the parties, to function as a fact finder.

109

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix A. Section 111.70—Continued

(g) Same. The fact finder may establish dates and place of hearings which shall be where feasible in the jurisdiction of the municipality involved, and shall conduct said hearings pursuant to rules established by the board. Upon request, the board shall issue

subpoenas for hearings conducted by the fact finder. The fact finder may administer oaths. Upon completion of the hearings, the

fact finder shall make written findings of fact and recommendations for solution of the dispute and shall cause the same to be

served on the municipal employer and the union.

(h) Parties.

1. Proceedings to prevent prohibitive practices. Any labor organization or any individual affected by prohibited practices herein

is a proper party to proceedings by the board to prevent such practice under this subchapter.

2. Fact finding cases. Only labor unions which have been certified as representative of the employes in the collective bargaining

unit or which the employer has recognized as the representative of said employes shall be proper parties in initiating fact

finding proceedings. Cost of fact finding proceedings shall be divided equally between said labor organization and the employer.

(i) Agreements. Upon the completion of negotiations with a labor organization representing a majority of the employes in a collective

bargaining unit, if a settlement is reached, the employer shall reduce the same to writing either in the form of an ordinance,

resolution or agreement. Such agreement may include a term for which it shall remain in effect not to exceed one year. Such agreements shall be binding on the parties only if express language to that effect is contained therein.

(j) Personnel relations in law enforcement. In any case in which a majority of the members of a police or sheriff or county traffic

officer department shall petition the governing body for changes or improvements in the wages, hours or working conditions and

designates a representative which may be one of the petitioners or otherwise, the procedures in pars, (e) to (g) shall apply.

Such representative may be required by the board to post a cash bond in an amount determined by the board to guarantee payment

of one-half of the costs of fact finding.

(k) Civil service exception. Paragraphs (e) to (g) shall not apply to discipline or discharge cases under civil service provisions

of a state statute or local ordinance.

(l) Strikes prohibited. Nothing contained in this subchapter shall constitute a grant of the right to strike by any county or municipal employe and such strikes are hereby expressly prohibited.

(m) Local ordinances control. The board shall not initiate fact finding proceedings in any case when the municipal employer through

ordinance or otherwise has established fact finding procedures substantially in compliance with this subchapter.

(5) PROCEDURES. Any municipal employer may employ a qualified person to discharge the duties of labor negotiator and to represent such municipal employer in conferences and negotiations under this section. In cities of the 1st class a member of the city council who resigns therefrom may, during the term for which he is elected, be eligible to the position of labor negotiator under this subsection, which position

during said term has been created by or the selection to which is vested in such city council, and s. 66.11(2) shall be deemed inapplicable

thereto.

Note: Section 111.70, Subsections (1), (2), and (3) were enacted by the 1959 Legislature; Subsections (1) (c) and (4) were enacted by the

1961 Legislature; Subsections (4) (f), (g), and (k) were amended by the 1963 Legislature; Subsection (5) was enacted by the 1965

Legislature; and Subsections (3) (a) and (4) (b) were amended by the 1967 Legislature.

110

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B. Certified or recognized collective bargaining units, 1963-70

Date of

Approxi­ certification

Year Bargaining Bargaining Unit mate or

Representative number of recognition

workers of bargaining

covered representative

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

Building Service Employees'

International Union, AFL-CIO,

Local 17

All regular employees having the classifications

of Natatorium Supervisor, Fireman, and Natatorium

Assistant in the various Natatoria in the Bureau of

Bridges and Public Buildings.

34 April 16, 1963

City of Milwaukee Garbage Collection Laborers Independent Local

Union

All regular employees having the classification

of Garbage Collection Laborer in the Bureau of

Garbage Collection and Disposal.

348 April 30, 1963

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 195

All regular employees having the classifications

of Bridgetender and Boat Operator employed in the

Division of Bridges and Viaducts in the Bureau of

Bridges and Public Buildings.

105 April 16, 1963

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers AFL-CIO,

Local 494

All regulars employees having the classifications

of Blacksmith, City Laborer, Laborer (Electrical

Services), Machinist, and Mechanic Helper in the

Machine Shop in the Division of Street Services of

the Bureau of Traffic Engineering and Electrical

Services.

11 April 16, 1963

International Brotherhood of

Fireman and Oilers, AFL-CIO,

Local 125-B

All regular employees having the classifications

of Boiler Repairman, Clerk II-Field (who are scalemen), Craneman, Furnaceman, Incinerator Plant Maintenance Worker, Garbage Disposal Laborer, Machinery

Operator, Maintenance Mechanic, Maintenance Mechanic

Foreman, and Garbage Collection Laborers (who are

employed six months or more in the Incinerator

Plants) in the Disposal Division of the Bureau of

Garbage Collection and Disposal.

85 April 16, 1963

Milwaukee District Council 48

(and its appropriate affiliated

Locals), American Federation of

State, County, and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO

All regular employees in the various bureaus in

the Department of Public Works of the City of

Milwaukee excluding all craft employees, confidential employees, supervisors and executives and also

excluding employees in the other five certified

collective bargaining units.

2,821 May 6, 1963

FIRE AND POLICE SERVICE PERSONNEL

1963

1964

Milwaukee Fire Fighters' Associ­ All regular employees employed in the various 920 October 16, 1963

ation, International Association bureaus of the Fire Department of the City of Granted recogniof Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local Milwaukee, excluding craft employees, confidential tion as the exclu215 employees, supervisors and executives and also

excluding the Fireboat Pilots and Marine Engineers

employed in the Fire Fighting Service and the Fire

Alarm Dispatchers employed in the Bureau of Fire

Communications.

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

sive bargaining

representative by

the Common Counci]

by resolution on

this date.

Association of Physicians and

Dentists

All regular employees having the classifications

of Public Health Physician I, Public Health Physician I (% time), Physician I (full time), Physician

I (% time), Dentist I, Dental Hygienist (3/4 time),

employed in the Health Department.

22 April 30, 1964

Association of Scientific Personnel

A H regular employees having the cl a s s i f i c a t i o n s

of Chemist III, II, Virologist III, I, Medical Laboratory Technician, Bacteriologist II, I, Chemical

Laboratory Technician employed as Scientific Personnel in the Bureau of Laboratories of the Health

Department.

13 April 30, 1964

Building Service Employees'

International Union, AFL-CIO,

Local 17

No change since 1963 34

City of Milwaukee Garbage Collection Laborers Independent

Local Union

No change since 1963 348

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 195

No change since 1963 105

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 494

No change since 1963 11

in

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B. Certified or recognized collective bargaining units, 1963-70— Continued

Year Bargaining

Representative

Bargaining Unit

Approximate

number of

workers

covered

J-------------------

j Date of

j certification

or

recognition

of bargaining

representative

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

1964 International Brotherhood of

Fireman and Oilers, AFL-CIO,

Local 125-B

No change since 1963 85

Milwaukee District Council 48

(and its appropriate affiliated

Locals), American Federation of

State, County, and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO

No change since 1963 except the addition of all

regular employees in the Department of Building

Inspection and Safety Engineering, the Election

Commission, the Harbor Commission, the Health

Department's Bureau of Environmental Sanitation, the

Public Library, the Public Museum, and the Tax

Department.

3,528 April 30, 1964

For regular

employees in the

listed departments

bureaus and commissions outside

of the Department

of Public Works.

Staff Nurses' Council of the

Milwaukee Health Department

All regular employees having the classifications

of Public Health Nurse II, I, Junior Public Health

Nurse,and Graduate Nurse I employed in the Health

Depar tment.

175 April 30, 1964

FIRE AND POLICE SERVICE PERSONNEL

1964 Milwaukee Fire Fighters' Association, International Association

of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local

215

No change since 1963 920

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 494

All regular employees having the classification

of Fire Alarm Dispatcher employed in the Bureau of

Fire Communications in the Fire Department.

17 January 6 , 1964

Uniformed Pilots and Marine

Engineers Association, International Association of Fire

Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 1037

All regular employees having the classifications

of Fireboat Pilots and Marine Engineers employed in

the Fire Fighting Service in the Fire Department.

10 January 6 , 1964

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

1965 Association of Physicians and

Dentists

No change since 1964 22

Association of Scientific

Personnel

A H regular employees.. .employed as Scientific

Personnel in the Bureau of Laboratories of the

Health Department of the City Milwaukee, excluding

all other employees, confidential employees, supervisors, and executives.

18

Building Service Employees'

International Union, AFL-CIO,

Local 17

No change since 1963 34

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

Local 195

No change since 1963 105

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 494

No change since 1963 11

International Brotherhood of

Fireman and Oilers, AFL-CIO,

Local 125-B

All regular employees having the classifications

of Boiler Repairman, Craneman, Furnaceman, Garbage

Disposal laborer, Incinerator Plant Maintenance

Worker, Machinery Operator, Maintenance Mechanic,

and Maintenance Mechanic Foreman in the Disposal

Division; of Plant Tipping Floor Attendant (formerly Garbage Collection Laborer employed six

months or more in the Incinerator Plants) in the

Collection Division; and of Scaleman (formerly

Clerk II-Field employed as Scaleman) in the General Office Division of the Bureau of Garbage

Collection and Disposal.

85

Journeyman Plumbers and GasFitters Union, AFL-CIO,

Local 75

All regulars employees having the classifications

of Plumbing Inspector and Plumbing Plan Examiner I

employed in the Bureau of Plumbing Inspection and in

the Meters and Services Division of the Water Department

18 July 30, 1965

Granted recognition as the

exclusive bargaining representative by

the Commoi.

Council by

resolution on

this date.

112

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B. Certified or recognized collective bargaining units, 1963-70— Continued

Year Bargaining

Representative

Bargaining Unit

Approximate

number of

,-worleers

covered

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

1965 Milwaukee District Council 48

(and its appropriate affiliated

locals), American Federation of

State, County, and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO

No change since 1964 3,528

Public Employees' Union # 61,

Laborers' International Union of

North America, AFL-CIO, CLC

(formerly City of Milwaukee

Garbage Collection Laborers

Independent Local Union)

No change since 1963 348

Staff Nurses' Council of the

Milwaukee Health Department

No change since 1964 175

Technicians, Engineers and

Architects of Milwaukee

All regular professional engineering and architectural employees, including Engineering Technicians IV, V, and VI, employed by the City of Milwaukee, excluding all other employees, confidential

employees, supervisory employees, and excutives.

204

Date of

certification

or

recognition

of bargaining

representative

November 1, 1965

(recertification)

May 24, 1965

FIRE AND POLICE SERVICE PERSONNEL

1965 Milwaukee Fire Fighters' Association, International Association

of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO,

Local 215

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 494

No change since 1963

No change since 1964

920

15

Uniformed Pilots and Marine

Engineers Association, International Association of Fire

Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 1037

No change since 1964 10

Professional Policemen's

Protective Association

Police Service

Detective Sergeant, Detective, Detective Legal &

Administrative, Police Sergeant, Police Sergeant

(Garage), Police Patrolman, Policewoman, Police

Matron, Police Identificiation Technician, Gunsmith

& Range Officer, Chief Document Examiner, Assistant

Document Examiner, Police Alarm Operator, Custodian

of Police Property and Stores, Assistant Custodian of

Property and Stores, Radio Mechanic Foreman, Radio

Mechanic, Administrative Police Sergeant

Although not

officially certfied nor officially granted recognition as a

collective bargaining unit, the

City considers

there to be an unofficial collective bargaining

unit based on a

WERB representation hearing and

order dated

March 19, 1965.

Civilian

Clerks III & IV; Clerk Stenographers I & II,

Clerk Stenographer III (except one position each in

Administration School); Clerk Stenographer IV;

Clerk Typists I, II, & III; Custodial Worker IICity Laborer; Duplicating Equipment Operator II;

Elevator Operator II; Garage Attendant; Key Punch

Operators I ’& II; Law Stenographer III, Maintenance

Mechanic; Police Aide (except one position in Personnel Bureau); Tabulating Equipment Operators I &

II

113

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B. Certified or recognized collective bargaining units, 1963-70— Continued

Year Bargaining

Represen ta t ive

Bargaining Unit

Approximate

number of

workers

covered

Date of

certification

or

recognition

of bargaining

representative

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

1966 Association of Physicians and

Dentists

No change since 1964 22

Association of Scientific Personnel

No change since 1965 IB

Building Service Employees' International Union, AFL-C10, Local 17

No change since 1963 34

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 195

No change since 1963 105

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 494

No change since 1963 1L

International Brotherhood of Fireman and Oilers, AFL-CIO, Local

125-B

i No change since 1965 83

Journeyman Plumbers and GasFitters Union, AFL-CIO, Local 75

No change since 1965 13

Milwaukee District Council 48

(and its appropriate affiliated

Locals), American Federation of

State, County, and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO

No change since 1964 3,523

Public Employees Union #61,

Laborers♦international Union of

North America, AFL-CIO, CLC

No change since 1965 343

Staff Nurses' Council of the

Milwaukee Health Department

No change since 1964 17 3

Technicians, Engineers, and

Architects of Milwaukee

No change since 1965 204

FIRE AND POLICE SHIVICE PERSONNEL

1966 Milwaukee Fire Fighters' Association, International Association

of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO,

Local 25

No change since 1963 920

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 494

No change since 1964 15

Uniformed Pilots and Marine Engineers Association, International Association of Fire Fighters,

AFL-CIO, Local 1037

No change since 1964 10

Professional Policemen's Protective Association

No change since 1965 2,150

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

1967 Association of Municipal Attorneys of Milwaukee

All regular professional attorneys in the City

Attorney's Office, excluding all other employees,

confidential employees, supervisory employees, and

executives.

20 August 24, 1967

Association of Physicians and

Dentists

No change since 1964 22

Association of Scientific

Personnel

No change since 1965 18

Building Service Employees'

International Union, AFL-CIO,

Local 17

No change since 1963 34

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 195

No change since 1963 105

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 494

No change since 1963 n

114

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B. Certified or recognized collective bargaining units, 1963-70— Continued

Year Bargaining Bargaining Unit

Approximate

Date of

certification

Representative number of

workers

covered

recognition

of bargaining

representative

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

International Brotherhood of

Firemen and Oilers, AFL-CIO,

Local 125-B

No change since 1965 85

Journeyman Plumbers and GasFitters Union, AFL-CIO. Local 75No change since 1965 18

Milwaukee District Council 48

(and its appropriate affiliated

Locals) American Federation of

State, County, and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO

No change since 1964 3,528

Public Employees Union #61,

Laborers International Union of

North America, AFL-CIO, CLC

No change since 1965 348

Staff Nurses'Council of the

Milwaukee Health Department

No change since 1964 175

Technicians, Engineers, and Architects of Milwaukee

No change since 1965 204

1967

FIRE AND POLICE SERVICE PERSONNEL

Milwaukee Fire Fighters' Association, International Association

of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO,

Local 215

No change since 1963 except for loss of one

employee represented by Sheet Metal Workers Local

No. 24

920

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 494

No change since 1964 15

Sheet Metal Workers' Union, AFLCIO, Local 24

All Fire Equipment Repairmen II who perform

sheet metal work more than fifty percent of their

working time

1

Uniformed Pilots and Marine

Engineers Association, International Association of Fire

Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 1037

No change since 1964 10

Professional Policemen's Protective Association

No change since 1965 2,150

February 24, 1967

(The only eligible

employee resigned

November 17, 1967,

since that time,

the Fire Department

has contracted out

all sheet metal

work).

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

Association of Municipal

Attorneys of Milwaukee

No change since 1967

20

Association of Physicians and

Dentists

No change since 1964 25

Association of Scientific

Personnel

No change since 1965 20

Building Service Employees'

International Union, AFL-CIO,

Local 17

No change since 1963 30

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 195

No change since 1963 100

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 494

No change since 1963 15

International Brotherhood of

Fireman and Oilers, AFL-CIO,

Local 125-B

No change since 1965 90

International Union of Operating

Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local 317

All Firemen employed in the Technical and Maintenance Division, Department of City Development

4

115

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B. Certified or recognized collective bargaining units, 1963-70— Continued

Year Bargaining

Representative

Bargaining Unit

Approximate

number of

workers

covered

Date of

certification

or

recognition

of bargaining

representative

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

1968 Journeyman Plumbers and Gas Fitters Union, AFL-C10, Local 75

No change since 1965 20

Milwaukee District Council 48

(and its appropriate affiliated

Locals), American Federation of

State, County, and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO

No change since 1965 except the addition of all

regular employees in the Department of City Development's Planning and Programming Division, in the

Real Estate Division and in the Technical and Maintenance Division except for Firemen represented by

Local 317, IU0E; the addition of all regular employees in the Police Department's Building and Grounds

Division, and the loss of all regular employees represented by Local 242 of the Teamsters Union.

4,000 (l)March 6 , 1968

For regular

employees in the

Technical and

Maintenance Division except Firemen.

(2) August 2,1968

Granted recognition as the

exclusive bargaining representative for

regular employees in the Programming and

Planning Division and in the

Real Estate Division by the Common Council by

resolution this

date,

(3) August 16, 1968

For regular

employees in the

Police Department's Building

and Grounds Division*

Municipal Truck Drivers Local

Union 242, affiliated with the

International Brotherhood of

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America

All regular employees employed in the Operations

Division of the Bureau of Municipal Equipment, excluding craft employees, confidential employees,

supervisors,and executives.

400

Public Employees' Union #61,

Laborers' International Union of

North America, AFL-CIO,CLC

No change since 1965 except new title of Truck

Loader (Combustible); (Formerly Garbage Collection

Laborer)

380

Staff Nurses' Council (City Unit) No change since 1964 170

Technicians, Engineers, and Architects of Milwaukee

No change since 1965

FIRE AND POLICE SERVICE PERSONNEL

200

Milwaukee, Professional Fire

Fighters'Association, International Association of Fire

Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 215

No change since 1963 1,000

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 494

No change since 1964 15

Uniformed Pilots and Marine

Engineers Association, International Association of Fire

Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 1037

No change since 1964 10

Professional Policemen's Protective Association

No change since 1965

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

2,150

Association of Municipal Attorneys of MilwaukeeNo change since 1967 20

Association of Physicians and

Dentists

No change since 1964 25

Association of Scientific

Personnel

No change since 1965 30

Building Service Employees' International Union, AFL-CIO,

Local 17

No change since 1963 25

International Brotherhood of

.Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 195

No change since 1963 90

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 494

No change since 1963 15

September 13,1968

116

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B. Certified or recognized collective bargaining units, 1963-70— Continued

Year Bargaining

1 Representative

1

Bargaining Unit

. Approxij mate

j number of

j workers

covered

j Date of

* certification

| or

• recognition

I of bargaining .

! representative !

i_____ 1

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

1969 International Brotherhood of

Firemen and Oilers, AFL-CIO,

Local 125-B

No change since 1965 | 110

International Union of Operating

Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local 317

No change since 1968 4

Journeyman Plumbers and Gas

Fitters' Union, AFL-CIO,

Local 75

No change since 1965 20

Milwaukee District Council 48

(and its appropriate affiliated

Locals), American Federation of

State, County, and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO

No change since 1968 except the addition of all

regular employees in the Department of Central

Electronic Data Services.

4,000 May 6, 1969

For regular

employees in

the Department

of Central

Electronic Data

Services.

Municipal Truck Drivers Local

Union 242, affiliated with the

International Brotherhood of

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of

America

No change since 1968

]

!

AQ0

1

i

Public Employees' Union #61,

Laborers' International Union

of North America, AFL-CIO, CLC

No change since 1968 i 380

Staff Nurses' Council (City

Unit)

1

No change since 1964 170

Technicians, Engineers, and

Architects of Milwaukee

No change since 1965 ; 200

FIRE AND POLICE SERVICE PERSONNEL

1969 Milwaukee Professional Fire

Fighters' Association, International Association of Fire

Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 2i5

No change since 1963 1,000 :

|

i

!

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 494

No change since 1964 i1 15 ]

i

Uniformed Pilots and Marine

Engineers Association, International Association of Fire

Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 1037

No change since 1964 10

Professional Policemen's

Protective Association

No change since 1965 2,100

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

Association of Municipal

Attorneys of Milwaukee

No change since 1967 24

Association of Physicians and

Dentists

No change since 1964 24

Association of Scientific

Personnel

No change since 1964 24

Building Service Employees'

International Union, AFL-CIO,

Local 17

| Decertified April 28, 1970

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 195

No changes since 1963 30

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 494

No change since 1963 15

International Brotherhood of

Firemen and Oilers, AFL-CIO,

Local 125-B

No change since 1965 110

117

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B. Certified or recognized collective bargaining units, 1963-70— Continued

Year Bargaining

Representative Bargaining Unit

Approximate

number of

workers

covered

Date of

certification

or

recognition

of bargaining

representative

GENERAL EMPLOYEES

International Union of Operating

Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local 317

No change since 1968 4

Journey Plumbers and Gas

Fitters' Union, AFL-CIO,

Local 317

No change since 1965 20

Milwaukee District Council 48 No change since' 1969 except the addition of all 4,000

(and its appropriate affiliated

Locals), American Federation of

State, County, and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO

regular employees in the remaining divisions of the

Department of City Development.

Municipal Truck Drivers Local

Union 242, affiliated with the

International Brotherhood of

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of

America

No change since 1968 400

Public Employees' Union #61,

Laborers' International Union

of North America, AFL-CIO

No change bince 1968 380

Staff Nurses' Council (City

Unit)

No change since 1964 177

Technicians, Engineers, and

Architects of Milwaukee

No change since 1965

FIRE AND POLICE SERVICE PERSONNEL

200

Milwaukee Professional Fire

Fighters' Association, International Association of Fire

Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 215

No change since 1963 980

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 494

No change since 1964 14

Uniformed Pilots and Marine

Engineers Association, International Association of Fire

Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 1037

No change since 1964 10

Professional Policemen's

Protective Association

No change since 1965 except the loss of

Detective Sergeants due to the recognition of

supervisory status as Lieutenants of Detectives in

the Management Pay Plan

L,814

October 6, 1970

Granted recognition as the

exclusive bargaining representative

for these additional employees by the

Common Council by

resolution on this

date.

In 1966, following a representation election, the WERB certified a joint bargaining representative of District Council 48

and Local 139 of the International Union of Operating Engineers (AFL-CIO) to represent approximately 60 prevailing wage

equipment operators. The two unions jointly petitioned for representation after an AFL-CIO referee recommended this

arrangement as a means of settling a jurisdictional dispute that dated back to early 1964. The bargaining unit included

all regular employees employed by the City in its various departments and divisions classified as Trench Machine Operator,

Clamshell Operator, Crane Operator, Hoist Operator, Hydraulic Hammer Operator, Roller Engineman, Enginaman (Asphalt

Plant), Roller Repairman, Tractor Operator (over 40 h.p.)- Bulldozer Operator (over 40 h.p.)- End Loader (over 40 h.p.),

and Tractor Operator (under h.p.)- Bulldozer Operator (under 40 h.p.), excluding all other employees, supervisors, and

department heads. Prevailing wage employees are outside the scope of this report.

118

☆ U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1971 O - 484-786 (33)

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

REGIONAL OFFICES

Region I

1603-A Federal B uilding 

G o vern m en t Center 

B oston, Mass. 02203 

Phone: 223-6762 (Area C ode 617

Region V

219 South Dearborn St.

Chicago, III. 60604

Phone: 353-7230 (Area Code 312)

Region II

341 N in th A ve ., R m . 1025

N e w Y o rk , N .Y . 10001

Phone: 971-5405 (A rea Code 212)

Region V I

1100 Com m erce St., Rm . 6B7

Dallas, T e x . 75202

Phone: 749-3516 (Area Code 214)

Region III

406 Penn Square B uilding 

1317 FMbert St.

Philadelphia, Pa. 19107

Phone: 597-7796 (Area Code 215)

Regions V I I and V I I I

Federal O ffice B uilding 

911 W alnut St., 10th F lo o r 

Kansas C ity , M o. 64106 

Phone: 374-2481 (Area Code 816)

Region IV 

Suite 540

1371 Peachtree St. N E .

A tla nta, Ga. 30309

Phone: 526-5418 (Area Code 404) *

* Regions V I I and VM M

** Regions IX and X will

Regions IX and X

450 G o lden Gate Ave.

Box 36017

San Francisco, Calif. 94102 

Phone: 5 5 6 ^ 6 7 8 (Area Code 415)

be serviced b y Kansas C ity , 

serviced b y San Francisco.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

B U R E A U O F L A B O R S T A T I S T I C S

W A S H IN G T O N , D .C . 20212

THIRD CLASS MAIL

O F F I C I A L B U S IN E S S

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

P O S T A G E A N D F E E S P A ID

U . S . D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B O R

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis