LX.3: \ 107 ~

Municipal 

Public Employee 

Associations

Dayton & Montgomery C& 

Public Library

SEP 151971 

DOCUMENT COLLECTION

BULLETIN 1702

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tistics

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Municipal 

Public Employee 

Associations _

BULLETIN 1702

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

J. D. Hodgson, Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 

Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner

1971

For sale by the S uperintendent of Documents, U.S. G overnm ent P rinting Office 

W ashington, D.C. 20402 - Price 50 cents 

Stock N um ber 2901-0675

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 is one of a series of studies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics dealing with 

public employee collective bargaining and labor relations. The study was carried out, 

in part, with funds made available by the Labor-Management Services Administration of 

the Department of Labor.

The Bureau made this study because little is known about municipal public employee 

associations, and because they have become a factor in city labor relations. Assisted by 

the International City Management Association, it conducted a mail questionnaire survey 

to analyze the characteristics and activities of such associations.

This bulletin was prepared in the Division of Industrial Relations, Office of Wages and 

Industrial Relations, by Ronald W. Glass and the late John David Korpi, under the 

direction of Leon E. Lunden, Project Director.

iii

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

Page

Chapter I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Background ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Scope and method of study................................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter II. Unions and associations in cities...................................................................................................................... 3

Type of organization................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Government activities................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Representation by organization............................................................................................................................................. 4

Chapter III. Municipal public employee associations. Basic characteristics, growth and stru ctu re............. 6

Basic characteristics ................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Association a c tiv itie s.......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Regional d istrib u tio n .......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Distribution by city size and metropolitan characteristics.................................................................................. 7

Occupational distribution ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Jurisdiction.............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Civil service coverage.......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Growth and structure of municipal public employee associations........................................................................ 8

Period of o rg an izatio n ....................................................................................................................................................... 8

Membership growth, 1962-68 .......................................................................................................................................... 8

A ffiliations.............................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Dues s tru c tu re ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter IV. Employer-employee relations ......................................................................................................................... 10

Recognition.............................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Type of docum ents............................................................................................................................................................. 10

Frequency of meetings and issues d iscu ssed ............................................................................................................ 11

Tables:

1. Survey scope and responses on employee representation in cities by city size, 1968-69 ................. 12

2. Employment in cities responding on employee representation by city size, 1968-69 ....................... 12

3. Represented and unrepresented employment in cities reporting dealings with unions and

associations, by city size, 1968-69 12

4. Represented employment in cities reporting dealings with unions or associations, by type

of organization and city size, 1968-69 ............................................................................................................ 13

5. Number and percent of cities reporting dealings with unions or associations by government

activity and city size, 1968-69 ............................................................................................................................ 13

6. Employment and represented employment by government activity and city size, 1968-69 .... 14

7. Responses to ICMA and BLS surveys of public employee associations by city size, 1968-69 . . . 15

8. Association membership by type of operation and city size, 1968-69 ..................................................... 13

9. Municipal public employee associations by region, 1968-69 ........................................................................ 13

v

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents-Continued

Tables— Continued

10. Percent distribution of union membership, estimated government union membership, and

membership in municipal public employee associations, 1968-69 .................................................................. 15

11. Municipal public employee associations by city size and city type, 1968-69 ................................................. 16

12. Municipal public employee associations by occupational composition, 1968-69 .......................................... 16

13. Municipal public employee associations by jurisdiction, 1968-69 ..................................................................... 16

14. Municipal public employee association membership by civil service codes or regulations, 1968-69 .... 16

15. Municipal public employee associations by founding dates and city size, 1968-69 ..................................... 17

16. Membership growth of municipal public employee associations by region, 1962-68 ................................... 17

17. Affiliations of municipal public employee associations by type of operation, 1968-69 .............................. 18

18. Annual dues for municipal public employee associations by type of operation, 1 9 6 8 -6 9 ........................... 18

19. Type of recognition for municipal public employee associations by city size, 1968-69 .............................. 19

20. Type of documents used to record the results of negotiations by type of recognition, 1968-69 ............. 19

21. Frequency of meetings by type of recognition, 1968-69 ...................................................................................... 20

22. Distribution of associations and membership by issues discussed, 1968-69 .................................................... 20

23. Role of municipal public employee associations in grievance cases by type of recognition, 1968-69 . . . 20

Appendixes:

A. Supplemental ta b le s ..............................................................................................................................................................21

B. Municipal public employee associations and membership in standard metropolitan statistical

areas, 1968-69 ................................................................................................................................................................ 39

C. Employee organizations questionnaire.............................................................................................................................41

D. BLS questionnaire................................................................................................................................................................. 45

vi

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Municipal Public Employee Associations 

Chapter I. Introduction

Background

During the 1948-68 period, expanding services have 

resulted in an impressive growth in Federal, State, and 

local government employment. From 1948 to 1968, 

public sector employment doubled from 5.9 to 11.8 

million. Of this growth, four-fifths, or 5.2 million, was 

an increase in the number of State and local employees.1 

Increases as dramatic as this do not occur without some 

dislocations and organizational strains. To settle grievances and to develop a voice on wages and other matters 

that government employers could resolve, State, county, 

and city employees moved towards various forms of collective action.

The last half of the 1 9 6 0 ’s witnessed a remarkable 

and largely unexpected expansion of labor-management 

activities at all levels of government. Union membership 

among government employees increased dramatically 

and was characterized by labor leaders as the new 

frontier of union growth. Climaxed by the Post Office 

Department stoppage early in 1970, government work 

stoppages moved from a negligible statistic in the early 

196 0 ’s to one of considerable importance in the later 

years. At the same time, new laws, executive orders, and 

legal interpretations granted full or partial collective 

bargaining rights to government workers.

Many city workers turned to several small unions already in existence. For the 1948-68 period, combined 

membership for the American Federation of Teachers, 

the International Association of Fire Fighters, and the 

American Federation of State, County and Municipal 

Employees, all AFL—CIO affiliates, more than tripled 

and rose from 2 0 8 ,0 0 0 in 1949 to 6 6 2 ,1 2 0 in 1968. 

Two-thirds of the increase occurred during the 1 9 6 0 ’s. 

Thus, the three unions, which had established small footholds before 1960, were able to take advantage of the 

more receptive collective bargaining environment that 

subsequently developed. By 1968, membership of the 

three unions totaled more than four-fifths of all 8 0 4 ,0 0 0 

union members who were State and local employees.2

However, not all employees seeking collective action 

turned to unions. Many were already members of local

public employee associations which were concerned, in 

large measure, with health, welfare, and retirement 

issues, that is, fraternal and benevolent organizations. 

The strength of these organizations lay in their knowledge of the inner workings of government, and they 

often appeared before legislative bodies on behalf of 

their retired and active members. Although associations, 

to a large degree, had no practical experience in day-byday labor-management relations and had rejected such 

a role in fact, some of their members, nevertheless, 

turned to them for representation in preference to 

unions. Many associations, some willingly, some only 

because of pressure from competing unions, assumed 

this responsibility and made the transition to nearunions.

Scope and method of study

The Bureau mailed questionnaires to 1,306 public 

employee associations in 8 2 4 cities that reported public 

employee associations. A mailing list was derived with 

the cooperation of the International City Management 

Association (ICMA) from a 2 ,0 7 2 city survey that it 

had conducted in 1968-69.

Of the 2 ,0 7 2 cities with populations of 10,000 or 

more surveyed by ICMA, 1,536 having a total municipal 

employment of 1.2 million responded. Fewer than onethird of the cities (5 0 3 ), accounting for under 10 percent of total employment (1 1 1 ,0 3 3 ), reported they had 

neither unions nor associations. (See tables 1 and 2.) 

The remaining two-thirds, or 1,033 cities, the employment of which totaled almost 1.1 million, stated that 

some or all of their employees were represented by 

either unions or associations. But only 8 2 4 reported

1 According to preliminary BLS data, growth continued beyond 1968. In 1970 employment reached 12.6 million; all of

the increase was accounted for by State and local employment.

2 Directory o f National and International Labor Unions in

the United States, 1969, BLS Bulletin 1665. These developments are discussed in detail in an article, “Union Membership

Among Government Employees,” Monthly Labor Review, July

1970, pp. 15-20.

1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
public employee associations. Represented employment, 

7 7 5 ,1 9 7 , amounted to 71 percent of all workers in the 

1,033 cities reporting unions or associations and 64 percent of employees in all 1,536 responding cities. (See 

table 3.) (See appendix C for sample questionnaire.)

Responses came to the Bureau from 9 2 7 , or 71 percent, of the 1,306 associations in 5 8 4 , or 71.5 percent, 

of the 8 2 4 cities. Of the 9 2 7 associations, 185 were 

engaged in neither legislative nor representation activities for public employees. No attempt was made to resolve the discrepancies between the responses of the city 

managers and the later responses of the associations. 

In some cases, conceivably, associations had an informal

relationship with the city. Therefore, they were uncertain of their legal status, and preferred to claim no 

role rather than jeopardize the existing relationship. 

All associations replying in the manner described were 

considered outside the scope of the study.

An additional 4 0 organizations replied that they were 

unions and not associations, and thus, were excluded 

from the study. Finally, 4 0 questionnaires were incomplete or otherwise unusable. The remaining 6 6 2 associations, scattered over 4 3 8 cities and having a combined 

membership of over one-quarter million, form the basis 

of the analysis in chapters III and IV. (See appendix D 

for sample questionnaire.)

2

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter II. Unions and Associations in Cities

The ICMA survey elicited responses from 1,536 cities 

having a total municipal employment of 1.2 million. 

(See tables 1 and 2.) Two-thirds (1 ,0 3 3 ) of the cities 

reported that some or all their employees belonged to a 

public employee association or union. These accounted 

for almost 1.1 million municipal employees. The remaining one-third (5 0 3 ) reported no associations or 

unions.

Represented employment, 7 7 5 ,1 9 7 , amounted to 71 

percent of all employees in the 1,033 cities reporting 

associations or unions and 64 percent of employees in 

the 1,536 responding cities. (See table 3.) The closeness 

of these two proportions reflects the small population 

and low employment totals for cities reporting no 

unions and associations.

The proportion of representation to total employment varied by size of city from a low of 25 percent for 

cities of 10,0 00 to 2 5 ,0 0 0 to a high of 93 percent for 

cities of a million or more. No city that reported unions 

or associations had fewer than 43 or more than 63 percent of its employees organized. The 64-percent average 

for all cities exceeded the averages for each city size 

except for those having populations of 1 million or 

more: New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and 

D etroit.3 These cities had 51 percent of all represented 

employees and, therefore, influenced the all-cities average in an upward direction. (See table 1.)

Type of organization

Of 1,033 municipalities reporting some or all employees represented, in 4 8 5 , or 47 percent, the organizations were exclusively either unions in 2 0 9 cities or 

associations in 2 7 6 cities. (See table 4.) These cities, 

however, were generally small— hence, low in total employment and in representation. Most employees worked 

in the remaining municipalities that had both unions and 

associations. Although only 53 percent, or 548, of the 

1,033 cities reporting representation had both types of 

organizations, these cities accounted for 91 percent of 

all represented workers. Representation in the four large 

cities influenced, but was not critical to, the findings.4

Overall, unions were reported in almost three-fourths, 

or 7 5 7 , of the 1,033 cities that had organizations; associations in almost four-fifths, or 8 2 4 .5

Government activities

The questionnaire requested information on eight distinct activities generally carried out by municipalities: 

Police and fire protection, public works, public utilities, 

public health and hospitals, noninstructional educational 

staff, parks and recreation, and public welfare. The proportion of cities that reported representation within each 

activity varied widely, but cities most often reported employee organization in police protection, fire protection, 

and public works, less often in parks and recreation and 

public utilities, and least often in the remaining activities. 

(See table 5.) Among the last, organization among noninstructional educational staff and public health and 

hospital workers appeared low because, in many instances, their activities fall outside the jurisdiction of the 

municipal government and are instead the responsibility 

of separate agencies.

A high proportion of cities of 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 inhabitants 

or more reported employee organizations in each activity. Proportions dropped significantly in smaller cities. 

E x c e p t for p o lic e and fire protection and to a lesser extent public works, representation was relatively low in 

all size groups and gave some indication of the general 

organizing direction that unions and associations seem 

to be taking.

The ranking of government activities by the proportion of employees represented differed in some respects 

from the ranking by the proportion of cities reporting

3 In its original mailing, the ICMA included two additional

cities— Chicago and Houston— but neither responded to the

questionnaire.

4 If the four largest cities were eliminated from the study,

the proportion of cities that had both unions and associations

would remain unchanged and the percentage of total represented

employment in such cities would drop less than 10 percentage

points, from 91.3 percent to 82.4 percent.

5 Unfortunately, the questionnaire and responses precluded

a specific allocation of represented employees to each type of

organization; hence, a comparison of relative strength could not

be made.

3

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
organization by unions or associations. Where fewer than 

4 0 percent of the cities reported organization in specific 

activities, the percent of employees represented, in all 

cases, was markedly higher:

Proportion of

cities reporting Proportion of

unions or total employees

Government activity associations represented

Police protection.................. 82.7 73.7

Fire protection .................... 76.2 82.1

Public w o rk s ........................ 60.1 52.3

Parks and recreation ........... 39.8 47.8

Public u tilitie s ...................... 32.0 55.7

Public health and

hospitals ............................ 11.0 58.8

Noninstructional educational staff .......................... 8.3 58.8

Public w e lfa re ...................... 5.9 71.4

All other activities............... 39.5 66.5

Again, larger cities exerted an upward influence upon 

the proportions of employees represented, especially 

those of 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 or more. (See table 6.) Police protection and fire protection continued to have the largest 

percentages of workers represented in most city sizes. 

Public welfare, because of its almost total organization 

in cities of 1 million and over6 replaced public works in 

third place. Organization in all activities was almost complete in cities of this size. Significant numbers of workers 

in all activities, in cities of 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 to 1 million, however, still remain to be organized. Although proportions 

in cities below this size as a rule drop significantly, in 

many cities employees are relatively few and scattered 

and could discourage organizing efforts of unions and 

associations. 7 But in national totals and proportions, 

organization by unions and associations is established 

firmly in each activity.

Representation by organization

As was noted earlier, 7 57 cities reported unions and 

8 2 4 cities reported public employee associations. The 

responding cities were asked to indicate those unions and 

associations that represented their employees. The results reveal that, in the cities studied, a number of unions 

are well represented, predominantly the International 

Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and the American 

Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 

both affiliates of the AFL-CIO. Among associations, 

only the Fraternal Order of Police had affiliates in a 

large number of cities, but additional unions and associations reported as follows:

Cities reporting

unions or

Employee organizations associations

All cities ......................................................... 1,033

Unions:1

Fire Fighters ................................................... 579

State, County and Municipal Employees .... 344

Teamsters ........................ 98

Building trades unions, except Laborers .... 55

Laborers............................................................ 40

Service Employees.......................................... 37

Other unions ................................................... 129

Associations:

Fraternal Order of Police ............................... 375

Other associations .......................................... 525

T h e n u m b e r o f c itie s re p o rtin g re p re se n ta tio n and the

n u m b e r o f lo cal u n io n s rep o rted b y each in te rn a tio n a l u n io n

are n o t co m p a ra b le because so m e u n io n s have lo ca ls also at

Fe d e ra l, S ta te , and c o u n ty go ve rn m e n t levels an d o th ers in

p rivate in d u s try ; so m e c itie s have m ore th an 1 lo ca l u n io n o f

the p aren t o rg a n iz a tio n ; and so m e lo cal u n io n s have ju ris d ic tio n

over m ore th a n 1 n e ig h b o rin g c ity .

In the view of city managers reporting, therefore, many 

municipal public employee associations already are 

shifting from benevolent and fraternal activities to representation for labor-management relations.

Each union or association has developed individual 

patterns of organization of government activities. The 

State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), 

for example, represented employees in all activities, but 

most frequently in public works, parks and recreation, 

and public utilities. The Teamsters (IBT) were found 

most often in public works; and building trades unions 

were about evenly divided between public works and 

public utilities. The Laborers (LIUNA) and Service Employees ‘ (SEIU) were in public works as well. Associations other than the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) 

were reported in all activities— and in some, in significant numbers, including police and fire protection, 

public works, and parks and recreation. (See appendix 

tables A-l to A-9 for details on the kinds of government 

activities which particular unions and associations have 

organized.)

In a similar manner, each government activity had its 

own pattern of representation by union or association. 

The FOP clearly dominated in police protection, but

6 These four cities account for almost three-fifths of total

employment (57.9 percent) in this activity.

7 A note of caution: The unorganized proportions are perhaps higher than these data reveal, on the assumption that, in

most cases, the 536 cities which did not respond to the survey

questionnaire did not deal with employee organizations. However, over two-thirds of the nonreporting cities were in the

smallest size group and, therefore, few employees would probably be added to the organizing potential.

4

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
other associations— such as associations of police chiefs, 

police sergeants, police benevolent groups, etc.— also 

were involved. Moreover, the AFSCME, has a small, 

but by no means insignificant presence. Among fire 

fighters, the major organization is the IAFF, and to a 

lesser extent, local associations of firemen, fire chiefs,

etc. (See appendix tables A-10 to A-18— to review the 

same city data in terms of activities.)

For the remaining activities, the AFSCME was frequently the representative, but never to the exclusion of 

other organizations, especially municipal public employee associations. (See appendix tables A-12 to A-18.)

5

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter III. Municipal Public Employee Associations 

Basic Characteristics, Growth and Structure

The Bureau received responses from 9 2 7 public employee associations in 589 cities. Of the 9 2 7 associations 

responding, 185 were engaged in neither legislative nor 

representation activities. An additional 4 0 organizations 

replied that they were unions, and thus, were excluded 

from the study. Forty questionnaires were incomplete 

or otherwise unusable. The remaining 6 62 associations 

in 4 3 8 cities had a combined membership of over onequarter of a million. They form the basis of the analysis 

in this chapter. (See table 7.)

Basic characteristics

Association activities. Over three-fifths, or 4 15 of 

the associations studied, involving more than four-fifths 

of the total membership, or 2 2 3 ,9 3 3 , were engaged in 

legislative activities and, at the same time, represented 

city employees in collective bargaining situations on 

wages and working conditions. (See table 8.) In essence, 

these associations not only represented employees in 

dealings with management but also appeared before lawmaking bodies on civil service or related personnel 

matters, activities which parallel those of unions of government employees.

Until the recent growth of collective bargaining in 

city government, the dominant activity of local associations and unions for a long time had been legislative. 

Lacking a formal labor-management procedure or communications channel, employee organizations were left 

with no alternative but to lobby to achieve their goals. 

In the case of associations, these objectives related 

only to part of the whole range of collective bargaining 

issues that concerned unions. For example, associations 

petitioned lawmakers to improve retirement provisions, 

the civil service status of city employees, etc., but, in 

general, did little about day-to-day problems at the 

workplace.

About 2 1 0 associations represented city employees 

only on wages, hours, working conditions and grievances, etc., and worked directly with city officials. 

None of these associations reported that they were engaged in legislative activities, but their negative response,

to a degree, is questionable. Conceivably, they have no 

planned legislative program at present; however, given 

the nature of public employment, possibly they would 

become involved in proposing, supporting, or opposing 

bills if the interests of their members were at stake.

A small minority of respondents (3 7 ) limited their 

activity to representing city employees before legislative 

bodies and excluded direct dealings with supervisors 

and other city officials. The overwhelming majority of 

their members were in five associations headquartered in 

cities of 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 or more. One represented utilities 

workers in a major city; it had been operating in the 

traditional legislative area for more than 30 years and 

received no dues from its members. The other four were 

associations of policemen largely created to lobby for 

pension and civil service reforms.8

Regional distribution. Associations were concentrated 

in three regions— the Middle Atlantic, East North 

Central, and Pacific States. Only the Pacific and Middle 

Atlantic regions reported large numbers of members 

representing almost 54 percent of all a sso c ia tio n s a n d 

82 percent of all association members. (See table 9.) 

California (2 0 5 reporting associations) and New York 

(8 2 ), contributed heavily to this regional polarity. Only 

one other State, Michigan, showed a significant concentration, 61 associations, but membership was relatively 

low.

Regional patterns for association membership, total 

union membership, and estimated government union 

membership are similar— where one is low, so are the 

others, and vice versa. (See table 10.) However, certain 

differences appear within these patterns. For one, total 

union membership and estimated government union 

membership follow each other closely and, as a rule, 

their proportions do not vary importantly. However, in 

the South Atlantic States, for reasons not readily apparent, the proportion in government unions exceeds that 

in all unions by a considerable margin.

8 For a general discussion, see J. Joseph Lowenberg,

“Policemen and Firefighters” in Seymour Wolfbein, ed., Emerging Sectors of Collective Bargaining, Braintree, Mass., D. H. Mark,

1970, p. 146.

6

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Association membership follows the same general 

pattern as the two union measures except for the East 

and West North Central States, where the ratio of association members is markedly lower than the other 

two. Where the proportion of union and estimated government union membership was low, association membership was lower; and where the first two measures 

were high, the North Central States excepted, association 

membership was much higher.

Distribution by city size and metropolitan characteristics. Not surprisingly, associations and their membership 

are distributed at opposite limits. The largest number of 

associations are concentrated in cities under 1 0 0 ,00 0 , 

and constitute almost three-quarters of all associations 

in this study’s scope. (See table 11.) On the other hand, 

cities of 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 inhabitants or more accounted for 

slightly more than one-tenth of all associations, but 

more than one-half of all association members. These 

larger cities employ numerically greater staffs and consequently have fewer, but larger, associations. Associations also exist in smaller municipalities, but their 

membership, relative to that for all associations, is low. 

From an organizer’s viewpoint, larger cities offer not 

only greater organizing potential, but also economy of 

size, in that the organizer may concentrate his energies 

for maximum results. Recruiting of members and maintaining an organization is a costly undertaking, often 

not covered by monthly dues payments.

Most associations confined their activities to one city. 

(See table 11.) In some instances, they also represented 

some members from smaller jurisdictions bordering on 

the city. Ten associations, mostly police organizations, 

were active in more than one city within this study’s 

scope. Six of the 10 involved associations in smaller 

cities located in nonmetropolitan areas.

Most cities in the survey were part of standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA’s)— i.e., the city or cities 

with which associations were dealing and the surrounding 

areas were economically and socially integrated and had 

a combined area population of at least 5 0 ,0 00 . Under 

this definition, over four-fifths of the associations 

were in metropolitan areas, as were almost nine-tenths 

of the membership. (See table 11.) In total, 116 SMSA’s 

incorporated the 6 6 2 associations, but only four SMSA’s

SMSA Associations Membership

T o ta l.......................... 190 141,408

Los Angeles— Long Beach,

Calif ................................... 60 35,284

New York, N .Y .................... 48 53,162

San Francisco— Oakland,

C alif..................................... 42 45,982

Detroit, M ich........................ 40 6,980

contained substantial numbers of associations or membership. With one exception, these conformed with the 

east coast-west coast pattern noted earlier; in this case, 

the west coast dominated: 9

In total, the four SMSA’s accounted for 2 8 .7 percent 

of the associations and 53.5 percent of their total 

membership.

Occupational distribution. Almost half, or 4 7 .0 percent, of the members of associations were policemen or 

firemen, followed by professional, technical and clerical 

employees, and then by blue-collar workers. (See table 

12.) The proportions would differ markedly, especially 

for professional, technical, and blue-collar workers, if 

city-related special districts, such as school districts, had 

been surveyed. The low proportion for blue-collar employees stems first from the historical development of 

associations which focused on protective occupations 

and white-collar employees, and second from the traditional efforts by unions to organize craft workers.

Two-thirds of the associations, having 4 9 percent of 

all members, covered only a single occupation, again 

predominantly policemen. (See table 12.) Of the 110 

associations having members in all three occupational 

groups, 9 6 were in cities having a population of fewer 

than 1 0 0 ,000. In smaller cities, separate associations for 

different categories of employees would be less practical 

than a citywide employees association which would then 

have sufficient membership to be a viable organization.

Jurisdiction. Eighty-eight percent or 5 80 municipal 

public employee associations were made up of only 

city employees; other jurisdictions supplied the remaining members, who were over one-fifth of total members. 

(See table 13.) Most of these were in closely associated 

units— county governments and school districts— which 

shared interests or had similar activities to those of 

city employees. A few were employed by special districts having separate taxing or revenue authorizations, 

such as port or water authorities, of by the Federal 

Government. One percent worked for private employers.

Gvil service coverage. Civil service systems were 

designed to prevent political abuses of government 

workers and to see that jobs went to qualified applicants. Independent civil service commissions established 

rules and procedures governing, for example, hiring and 

firing, promotions, and the settlement of grievances. 

Over three-fourths of the associations reported some or 

all of their membership were covered by civil service 

regulations; over four-fifths of all members held civil 

service positions. (See table 14.) In fact, almost twothirds of the associations and about three-fourths of all

See appendix B for a complete listing of the 116 SMSA’s.

7

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
members were in organizations reporting 100-percent 

civil service coverage.

On the other hand, civil service systems, although 

well-established, were by no means universal. About 35 

percent, or 2 3 3 , reported that some or all employees 

were not covered, of which 151 reported no coverage or 

did not respond to the Bureau’s question.10 Most.associations in this latter category were in cities having populations under 1 0 0 ,00 0 . Conceivably, smaller cities with 

low employment levels have as yet not adopted independent civil service systems. Eighty-two associations 

also reported varying proportions of their members outside the civil service system. In some cases, this exception 

results from the deliberate exclusion of certain groups 

of workers from an existing system, for example, 

secretarial and clerical staff to major city executives. 

Among association members themselves are some who 

have reached high management levels in municipal 

administration, but who have retained association membership, and are perhaps active in the organization.

Growth and structure of municipal public

employee associations

Period o f organization. Of the 6 6 2 associations in the 

study, all but 50 reported the year in which they were 

founded. Of the 6 12 responding, most were formed after 

World War II and more than one-third, or 2 1 5 , during 

the last decade. (See table 15.) Only 12 percent or 73 

existed in 1929. By 1 939, another 84 or over eight 

a year had been established compared with over 10 a 

year in the 1 9 4 0 ’s, over 15 in the 1 9 5 0 ’s, and over 21 

in the 1 9 6 0 ’s. Well over half, or 3 5 1 , were established 

between 1950 and 1 9 6 8 .11

For all city size groups, stirrings during the 1 9 5 0 ’s 

and the dispersion of representation rights in the 1 9 6 0 ’s, 

trickling down from the Federal Government to State 

and local jurisdictions, affected the growth in the number of associations. In cities of 1 0 ,000 to 2 5 ,0 0 0 , for example, almost half the reporting associations were established during the 1 9 6 0 ’s, and almost two-thirds during 

the 1 9 5 0 ’s and 1 9 6 0 ’s. (See table 15.) Similar proportions exist for cities of 1 million or more, and slightly 

smaller ratios for other city size groups as associations 

proliferated. The scope of the present study prevented 

the development of any information, however, on the 

factors that affected the growth of associations.12

Membership growth, 1962-68. Questionnaire responses on membership in 1962 and in 1968 show 

that association membership, as well as the number of 

associations, increased from 1962 to 1968. For the 

4 6 0 organizations reporting membership for both years, 

almost 5 4 ,0 0 0 workers, or more than 28 percent, were

added to the rolls. (See table 16.) By comparison, the 

growth rate for the same period was lower for total 

union membership (15.1 percent) and substantially 

higher for government union membership (75 .9 percent). 13 Although the Pacific States contributed substantially to the growth, its 18.5-percent rate of growth 

fell below the 28.7-percent general rate for all reporting 

associations. The 40.3-percent growth in the Middle 

Atlantic States was substantially greater than the national average. These results suggest that the Pacific region, 

the largest in total membership, is stabilizing, and the 

focus of activity is shifting toward the Middle Atlantic 

area, which, for the moment, at least, appears the more 

dynamic.14

Affiliations. Approximately three-fifths of the associations reported that they were affiliated with organizations of like associations, either on a Statewide or 

national basis. (See table 17.) The latter was particularly 

true for associations of policemen, which accounted for 

nearly two-thirds of all associations that reported 

affiliations.

To some degree, affiliations— police and other— 

stem from earlier days when prohibitions on collective 

bargaining with city employers were the rule. Associations, at that time, took their cases directly to State 

and municipal legislative bodies. Consolidated, larger 

voices were more likely to be heard than a number of 

smaller, disparate voices. Hence, affiliations took place 

for common, continuing legislative purposes: Working 

conditions, civil service procedures, retirement, etc. 

The only group of associations to report a low affiliation frequency were those which performed representation functions exclusively, in direct contact with city 

officials. (See table 17.) Of the 142 associations that 

reported no affiliations, 77 had been founded in 1962 

or later— during a period of growing acceptance of collective bargining with municipal employers.

Aggregate data give the number of associations 

reporting affiliations with larger organizations. However,

10 Often a “no response” is likely to mean “do not have.”

11 No information is available on the number of associations

in existence during these periods. The above data refer only to

founding dates of organizations functioning at the time of this

survey.

12 Speculations cannot be answered (1) that associations

which developed before 1960 did not include employee representation functions, but adopted these activities after the establishment of city collective bargaining rights; (2) that associations

which developed since 1960 were established specifically to represent public employees at the bargaining table;.and (3) that associations established during the 1950’s and 1960’s were developed to offset the growth of municipal unions.

13 “Union Membership among Government Employees,”

op. cit.f p. 16.

14 Possibly, enabling legislation and administrative orders

have occurred more often in the Middle Atlantic than in the

Pacific area. Hence, the greater growth in the East.

8

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
data on these parent bodies and their relative importance are inconclusive, because some questionnaire 

responses indicate an unknown number of associations 

which had multiple affiliations but did not report each 

one. Thus, an association belonging to an intrastate 

group and to a statewide organization as well might have 

reported only one affiliation. For this reason, data below 

the aggregate level may be understated and the relative 

importance of groups of affiliates might differ if reporting had been more complete.

Among police organizations, Statewide police groups 

and the national Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) were 

particularly prominent. In total membership, statewide 

police groups were more important than the FOP. 

Affiliates of the FOP were in 22 States, largely east of 

the Mississippi, Statewide police organizations were reported in 12 States, primarily in New York (the Police 

Conference of New York, Inc.), Wisconsin (the Wisconsin 

Professional Policemen’s Association), and California 

(the Peace Officers Research Association of California). 

Among associations reporting affiliation with State 

police organizations, 10 also reported an alliance with 

the International Conference of Police Associations 

(ICPA). 15 (See table 17.) Firemen association affiliations were relatively rare, since these employees had long 

been preempted by a trade union, the International 

Association of Fire Fighters (AFL—CIO).

Among firemen’s associations and associations other 

than policemen’s, the only significant cluster of organizations reporting involved statewide alliances of State, 

county, and municipal employees. (See table 15.) Two 

State organizations alone accounted for 68 of the 76 

affiliations, namely, the California League of City Employee Associations and the New York Civil Service 

Employees Association, Inc. Below the State level, a 

number of coordinating councils referred to specific instate areas— in scope, a city (e.g., the Des Moines Municipal Joint Council), a greater metropolitan area (e.g., 

the Bay Area Public Employees Coordinating Council), 

or a county (e.g., the Los Angeles County Employees 

Association).16

National affiliations were cited infrequently. Besides 

the International Conference of Police Associations and 

the Fraternal Order of Police, affiliations were reported 

with the American Nurses Association and the National 

Federation of Licensed Practical Nurses.17

Dues structure. Dues are the major source of operating revenue for associations. When associations participated only in legislative and benevolent activities, dues 

levels could remain low. Lawmaking sessions of State, 

county, and city legislative bodies often lasted for only 

a few months each year, and associations, therefore, 

required few, if any, full-time staff. On the other hand, 

day-to-day representation of city employees, plus annual 

or biennial negotiations, require a year-round professional staff and more income. Although most associations studied were involved in employee representation, 

annual dues reported were nominal. (See table 18.) As 

associations added employee representation to their existing activities, (a) adjusting dues levels to operating 

needs may have lagged; or (b) representation activities 

at the time of the survey may have been modest. Also, 

members who are full-time city employees may do a 

great deal of the work and receive no compensation from 

their associations.

By comparison, a study by the National Industrial 

Conference Board noted that two-thirds of those national unions establishing dues minimums in their constitutions (amounts above the minimum could be set at 

local union option) required payments of $3 to $5 a 

m o n th .18 Only 106, or fewer than one-fifth, of the 6 0 0 

associations in this study reported annual dues of $ 3 0 or 

more, or less than $3 a month. (See table 18.) Dues for 

most associations, in fact, fell well below $ 3 0 . Most associations having only legislative activities requested less 

than $ 2 0 in yearly dues. Most of the associationshaving 

dues of $ 3 0 or more were policemen and firemen groups. 

Associations made up of blue-collar and manual crafts 

tended toward the lower end of the scale.

15 Two additional associations reported only affiliation with

ICPA.

In early 1971, the officers of the Los Angeles County Employees Association approved, subject to membership ratification, affiliation with the Service Employees International Union

(AFL-CIO).

The number of municipally employed registered nurses

belonging to the ANA is understated, because ANA subordinate

bodies were unable to separate and report the number of nurses

in city employment from those in private, nonprofit hospitals.

18 Edward R. Curtin, “Union Initiation Fees, Dues and Per

Capita Tax,” Conference Board Record, August 1967, p. 9.

Since 1967, union convention reports of dues and per capita

tax increases indicate that, if restudied, this dues range would

move to a higher level.

9

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter IV. Employer-Employee Relations

Recognition

The degree of recognition accorded to local associations largely depends upon the law governing labormanagement relations in each city. According to a 

recent study . . . “The majority of States do not have 

statutes encouraging employee organization or providing 

machinery for regularizing public labor-management relationships.” 19 However, “there has been a significant 

trend in the past decade in the States toward accepting 

employee organizations ...” 20 In its questionnaire, 

the Bureau asked responding associations to define the 

kind of recognition that it had received from city government. Almost 6 0 percent, or 3 9 3 , involving nearly 65 

percent of the total membership, reported that they had 

been granted formal recognition— that is, recognition 

by law, executive order, or some other administrative 

promulgation. (See table 19.) Such recognition generally 

connotes an enduring, relatively firm relationship, usually accompanied by legal requirements to meet and 

confer or to negotiate agreements or other bilateral 

documents.

The proportion of associations having formal recognition appears high because questionnaires were sent only 

to organizations designated by city management as having 

a relationship with the city. Associations in municipalities in which no relationship— formal or informal— 

exists as yet, if included, would diminish the proportion, 

but to what degree is unknown.

Except for those in cities of 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 to 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 , over 

50 percent of the associations in each city-size group 

reported formal recognition. Cities of 1 million inhabitants or more, where labor relations machinery usually 

is better established than in smaller cities, had a higher 

incidence of formal recognition than other city-size 

groups (81.1 percent of all associations and 72.1 percent of members).

Type of documents

The results of negotiations in the private sector are 

transcribed into a collective bargaining agreement. Subsequent questions of interpretation and application are 

resolved through the grievance and arbitration procedure. 

Although management may assert certain functions as 

belonging solely to it, in practice such “management

rights” may be circumscribed by specific agreement 

provisions.

In the public sector, where legislative and executive 

branches in many cities retain a strong conviction concerning the sovereignty of government, the type of 

document carrying the results of negotiation varies, from 

the bilateral collective bargaining agreement to a variety 

of unilaterally promulgated documents. In many of the 

latter, however, unions and associations exert a strong 

influence.

Of the 6 6 2 associations in the study, 53 1 , covering 

four-fifths of the membership, reported that the results 

of their meetings or negotiations had been reduced to 

some bilateral or unilateral written form. (See table 20.) 

Virtually every association having formal recognition 

indicated the results of negotiations were recorded in 

written documents; informally recognized associations 

were significantly less successful, but still, a clear majority indicated written documents. Most frequently, associations reported a written agreement— this occurred in 

two-fifths of the 531 reporting associations, covering 

almost half the members in reporting associations. However, unilateral ordinances and personnel regulations 

each applied to more members. Written agreements 

were a rarity among informally recognized associations,21 and unilateral documents in relative abundance, 

as might be expected.

Seven out of 10 associations had a single written document with city management; most frequently, for formally recognized associations, they were written agreements, but for informally recognized groups, they were 

about evenly divided between personnel regulations and 

memoranda of understanding. (See appendix table A-19.) 

Although fewer associations reported more than one 

type of document, these applied to over two-thirds of 

the membership. Of particular interest were those formally recognized organizations reporting written agreements or two other documents or more. Presumably, in

19 Joseph P. Goldberg, “Changing Policies in Public Employee Labor Relations/* Monthly Labor Review, July 1970 p 5

2 i I b i d *

Indeed, where they were reported there might have been

some confusion between the definition of an agreement and a

memorandum of understanding to which these associations

contributed.

10

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
some cities, certain issues are not formally subject to 

negotiations and, hence, cannot be included in a collective bargaining agreement. In other situations designated issues likely are reserved to a legislative body and 

result in the issuance of ordinances, while others come 

within the jurisdiction of city executives and result in 

personnel regulations and similar promulgations.

Associations in cities of 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 or more accounted 

for 12.4 percent of all associations reporting written 

documents, but because of larger city employment and 

hence, large association membership, represented 51.8 

percent of all members. (See appendix tables A-20 and 

A-21.) Most associations with written documents were 

reported in cities having populations of 10,0 00 to

1 0 0 ,000, and surprisingly a large number reported 

written bilateral agreements only, or in combination with 

other documents, especially where the association had 

received formal recognition. However, cities of 1 million or more represented most of the members under 

written agreements alone or in combination with other 

documents. In cities of 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 to 1 million, associations so far have had little success in negotiating bilateral 

agreements, even where they are formally recognized.

Frequency of meetings and issues discussed

In private industry w here provisions for labormanagement relations committees have been negotiated, 

parties meet regularly to discuss problems in the bargaining unit. Some evidence of this kind of activity was 

noted in Federal agreements. 22 As a rule, however, 

unions and Federal agencies held meetings irregularly, 

usually to discuss problems in their relationship. Associations indicated some held regular labor-management 

meetings, but more often these meetings were irregular. 23 (See table 21.) Only 13 percent of the 611 

associations, or 22.2 percent of the members replying to 

the question about meetings, held regular meetings.

The issues discussed between associations and city 

officials did not differ markedly from those for unions in 

private industry. Pay ranked first, then working conditions and fringe benefits, and then a series of items 

listed in the Bureau’s questionnaire, all reported (except 

for discharges) by at least half of the associations. 

Although there may have been some propensity to check 

off all items, since the questionnaire requested a check 

for any issues that “have been or may be discussed with 

supervisors or officials,” the broad response still remains 

an indicator of an experience in labor-management 

affairs. It is not a response, however, of the depth or 

quality of that experience.

Interestingly, 4 9 2 associations had discussed grievance 

procedures with supervisors or officials, and 583 had 

participated in the city’s grievance system. (See tables 

22 and 23.) The difference probably stems from separate 

grievance systems under municipal civil service which the 

associations had not negotiated, but had been assigned 

a role along with the grievant. Of the 583 associations 

reporting, only 36 responded that they had no role in 

the grievance procedure, almost two-thirds of which 

were associations having informal recognition. Fourfifths of the associations, incorporating nine-tenths of 

the membership in responding organizations, affirmed an 

active role in the system— i.e., representing the aggrieved. Members in associations with formal recognition 

were more likely to have their association represent them 

in grievance hearings than members in associations with 

informal recognition. Seven out of 10 of such informally 

recognized organizations, however, still reported that 

they represented the grievant; yet, the incidence of associations in this group which played passive roles—

i.e., acting as observers or only being notified of the 

outcome of the hearings— was higher than in formally 

recognized associations.

22 Collective Bargaining Agreements in the Federal Service,

Late Summer, 1964, BLS Bulletin 1451, 1965, pp. 49-50.

23 The meetings referred to occurred for reasons other than

for contract negotiations. No information was developed on frequency of meetings.

11

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Survey scope and responses on employee representation

in cities by city size, 1968-69

City size

Cities

in

survey

Cities

Cities reporting

dealings with unions

and associations

Cities reporting

no dealings with

unions and

associations responding

Number

Percent

of cities

responding

Number

Percent

of cities

responding

T o t a l -------------------------------------- 2,072 1,536 1,033 67. 2 503 32. 8

1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 and o v e r ------------------------- 6 4 4 100. 0

. _

500,000-1,000,000 ------------------------ 21 19 19 100. 0 - -

250,000-500,000 ---------------------------- 27 24 23 95. 8 1 4. 2

100,000-250,000 ---------------------------- 96 76 61 80. 2 15 19. 8

5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ------------------------------ 232 197 171 86. 8 26 13. 2

25,000-50,000 -------------------------------- 477 366 287 78. 4 79 21. 6

10,000-25,000 -------------------------------- 1, 213 850 468 55. 0 382 45. 0

Table 2. Employment in cities responding on employee 

representation by city size, 1968-69

Employment

City size Cities

responding

Cities reporting

dealings with unions

and associations

Cities reporting

no dealings with

unions and

associations

Number

Percent

of cities

responding

Number

Percent

of cities

responding

Total ------------------------------------- 1,207,446 1,096,413 90. 8 111,033 9. 2

1,000,000 and over ------------------------ 427,084 427,084 100.0 _ _

500,000-1,000,000 ------------------------ 213,827 213,827 100. 0 - -

250,000-500,000 ---------------------------- 86,949 82,305 94. 7 4, 644 5. 3

100,000-250,000 ---------------------------- 141,341 115,926 82. 0 25,415 18. 0

5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ------------------------------ 120,267 105,810 88. 0 14,457 12. 0

25,000-50,000 -------------------------------- 111,429 90,420 81. 1 21,009 18. 9

10,000-25,000 -------------------------------- 106,549 61,041 57. 3 45,508 42. 7

Table 3. Represented and unrepresented employment in cities reporting dealings with unions and associations, 

by city size, 1968-69

Cities reporting dealings with unions and associations

City size

Total

Represented employment Unrepresented employment

Number

Percent

of cities

reporting

dealings

Percent

of cities

responding 1

Number

Percent

of cities

reporting

dealings

Percent

of cities

responding 1

Total --------------------------- 1,096,413 775,197 70. 7 64. 2 321,216 29. 3 26. 6

1,000, 000 and over -------------- 427,084 397,169 93. 0 93. 0 2 9 ,9 1 5 7. 0 7. 0

500,000-1,000,000 -------------- 213,827 116,983 54. 7 54. 7 96,844 45. 3 45. 3

250,000-500,000 ------------------ 82,305 54, 837 66. 6 63. 1 27,468 33. 4 31. 6

100,000-250,000 ------------------ 115,926 67,420 58. 2 47. 7 48, 506 41.8 34. 3

50,000-100,000 ------------------- 105,810 64, 237 60. 7 53. 4 41,573 39. 3 34. 6

25,000-50,000 ---------------------- 90,420 47, 564 52. 6 42. 7 42,856 47. 4 38. 5

10,000-25,000 ---------------------- 61,041 26, 987 44. 2 25. 3 34,054 55. 8 32. 0

S e e ta b le 2 for e m p lo y m e n t in c it i e s resp onding.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 4. Represented employment in cities reporting dealings with unions or associations, 

by type of organization and city size, 1968-69

Cities reporting dealings with unions or associations

City size Total

Type of organization

Unions only A ssociation s only Unions and association s

Number Employees

represented Number Employeesrepresented Number Employeesrepresented Number Employees

represented

T o t a l ---------------------------------------- 1, 033 775, 197 209 27,336 276 39, 378 548 708, 483

1, 000, 000 and o v e r ------------------------- 4 397,169 _ _ . _ 4 397,169

500,000 1,000,000 ------------------------- "19 116, 983 2 7, 094 - - 17 109,889

250, 000 500, 000 -------------------------- - 23 54, 837 1 640 2 6, 273 20 47, 924

100, 000 250, 000 --------------------- ------ 61 67,420 7 4, 623 3 3, 221 51 59, 576

50, 000 100, 000 --------------------------- - 171 64, 237 23 4, 582 38 11,816 110 47, 839

25, 000 50, 000 - --------------------------- 287 47, 564 60 5, 981 68 9, 984 159 31,599

10, 000 25, 000 -------------------------------- 468 26,987 116 4, 416 165 8, 084 187 14, 48 7

Table 5. N um ber and percent of cities reporting dealings with unions or associations, by government activity and city size, 1968-69

City size

Cities

reporting

dealings

with

unions

or

a sso ciations

Government activities 1

Police

protec -

tion

Percent

of

cities

reporting

dealings

Fire

protec -

tion

Percent

of

cities

reporting

dealings

Public

works

Percent

of

cities

repo r ting

dealings

Public

utilities

Percent

of

cities

reporting

dealings

Public

health

and

hospitals

Percent

of

cities

reporting

dealings

Education

(noninstructional)

Percent

of

cities

reporting

dealings

Parks

and

r ecreation

Percent

of

cities

reporting

dealings

Public

welfare

Percent

of

cities

repo rting

dealings

All other

occupational

functions

Percent

of

cities

repo r ting

dealings

Number

of cities

Number

of cities

Number

of cities

Number

of cities

Number

of cities

Number

of cities

Number

of cities

Number

of cities

Number

of cities

T o t a l ------------------------- 1, 033 854 82. 7 787 76. 2 621 60. 1 331 32. 0 114 11. 0 86 8. 3 411 39. 8 61 5.9 408 39. 5

1, 000, 000 and o v e r ---------- 4 4 100. 0 4 100. 0 4 100. 0 3 75. 0 4 100. 0 1 25. 0 4 100. 0 2 50. 0 4 100. 0

5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ----------- 19 17 89. 5 19 100. 0 17 89. 5 11 57.9 9 47. 4 5 26. 3 13 68. 4 4 21. 1 13 68.4

250, 000-500, 000 --------------- 23 21 91.3 23 100. 0 16 69. 6 13 56. 5 10 43. 5 2 8. 7 16 69. 6 3 13. 0 17 73.9

100,000-250, 000 --------------- 61 58 95. 1 61 100. 0 49 80. 3 32 52. 5 26 42. 6 16 26. 2 44 72. 1 11 18. 0 43 70. 5

50,000-100,000 ----------------- 171 150 87. 7 155 90. 6 121 70. 8 60 35. 1 24 14. 0 16 9. 4 95 55. 6 17 9.9 91 53. 2

25,000-50, 000 ------------------- 287 239 83. 3 235 81.9 182 63. 4 95 33. 1 23 8. 0 20 7. 0 132 46. 0 18 6. 3 113 39.4

10,000-25,000 ------------------- 468 365 78. 0 290 62. 0 232 49. 6 117 25. 0 18 3. 8 26 5. 6 107 22.9 6 1. 3 127 27. 1

1 G o v e r n m e n t a c t i v i t i e s a r e grouped by d e p a r tm e n ts and in c lu d e both p r i m a r y and su pport p e r s o n n e l; for e x a m p le ,

personnel.

police protection includes uniformed police personnel and nonuniformed

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 6. Em ployment and represented employment by government activity and city size, 1968-69

City size

All

responding

cities

Employment in----

Police protection Fire protection Public works

Total, all

responding

cities

Represented

employment

Percent

of all

responding

cities

Total, all

responding

cities

Represented

employment

Percent

of all

responding

cities

Total, all

responding

cities

R e p r e -

sented

employment

Percent

of all

responding

cities

T o ta l ------------------- 1, 2 0 7 ,4 4 6 186,124 137, 132 73. 7 125, 824 103, 299 82. 1 173, 302 90, 561 52. 3

1, 00 0, 000 and o v e r ------ 427, 084 52, 524 52, 001 99. 0 21,321 21,205 99. 5 20, 787 18,460 88.8

500, 000-1, 000, 000 ------ 213, 827 32, 696 22,511 68. 8 21,600 20,340 94. 2 33, 650 20, 396 60.6

250,000-500,000 ---------- 86, 949 15, 921 13, 115 82. 4 13, 488 12,558 93. 3 19,714 10, 530 53. 4

100,000-250,000 ---------- 141, 341 2 1 ,2 4 5 13, 572 63.9 18,915 14, 864 78. 6 27, 541 11, 210 40. 7

5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ------------- 120,267 22, 602 15, 711 69. 5 19, 807 16, 077 81.2 25, 692 13, 548 52. 7

25,000-50,000 -------------- 1 1 1 ,429 20, 285 12, 092 5 9.6 17,077 12, 310 72. 1 23, 281 10, 522 45. 2

10, 000-25, 000 -------------- 106, 549 20, 851 8, 130 39. 0 13, 616 5, 945 43. 7 22, 637 5, 895 26. 0

Public utilities Public health and hospitals Educational (noninstructional)

T o ta l -------------------- 132, 311 73, 671 55. 7 87,524 51, 431 58.8 69,162 40, 659 58. 8

1, 000, 000 and o v e r ------- 60,328 44, 083 73. 1 35, 112 33, 028 94. 1 24, 789 22, 789 91.9

500,000-1, 000,000 ------- 19,065 12, 110 63. 5 23, 044 9, 210 40. 0 14, 629 6, 000 41.0

250,000-500,000 -----------_________ 5, 544 3, 362 60. 6 5, 083 1 ,9 0 7 37. 5 2, 893 2, 075 71.7

100,000-250,000 ----------- 13, 943 5, 844 41.9 8, 923 4, 282 48. 0 14, 277 5, 157 36. 1

50,000-100,000 ------------_________ 10, 912 3, 252 29.8 3, 337 794 23. 8 3, 593 2, 183 60. 8

25, 000-50, 000 --------------- 9, 811 2, 839 28. 9 6, 682 1, 550 23. 2 5, 137 1,455 28. 3

10, 000-25, 000 --------------- 12, 708 2, 181 17. 2 5, 343 660 12. 4 3, 844 1, 000 26. 0

Parks and recreation Public welfare All other activities

T o t a l -------------------- 58,824 28, 251 47. 9 27,676 19,764 71.4 346, 699 230,429 66. 5

1, 000, 000 and o v e r ------- 12,584 11,550 91.8 16, 040 16, 015 99. 8 183, 599 178,038 97. 0

500,000-1,000,000 ------- 9, 833 3, 876 39. 4 7, 485 2, 327 31. 1 51,825 20, 213 39. 0

250,000-500,000 ----------- 6, 794 3, 869 56.9 870 436 50. 1 16, 642 6, 985 42. 0

100,000-250, 000 -----------. ------- ----- 9, 811 3, 282 33. 5 1, 340 332 24. 8 25, 346 8, 877 35. 0

50,000-100,000 ------------ -- __ ------- 8, 033 3, 168 39. 4 893 371 41.5 25, 398 9, 133 36. 0

25, 000-50, 000 --------------- 6, 347 1, 788 28. 2 736 271 36. 8 22, 073 4, 737 21. 5

10,000-25,000 --------------- 5, 422 718 13. 2 312 12 3. 8 21,816 2, 446 11.2

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 7. Responses to ICMA and BLS surveys of public

employee associations by city size, 1968-69

City size

ICMA 1

survey cities

reporting

public

employee

a s s o c ia t io n s

BLS survey

Total

responses

Usable

responses 2

Cities A sso ­

ciations Cities A sso ­ciations

Association

members

T o t a l ---------------------------------- 824 589 927 438 662 264, 366

1, 000, 000 and o v e r ------------------- 4 4 66 4 53 86, 876

500,000-1,000,000 -------------------- 17 14 40 10 25 59,763

250, 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 ------------------------- 22 19 28 15 24 17, 749

1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 000 ------------------------- 54 47 80 38 55 24, 822

50, 000-1 p0, 000 -------------------------- 148 119 174 96 134 19,507

25,000-50, 000 ---------------------------- 227 162 245 133 194 16, 892

10, 000-25, 000 ---------- ----------- 352 224 284 142 167 9, 259

Intercity ........................................... .

- “ 10 -

10 29, 498

1 In ter n a tio n a l City M a n a g e m e n t A s s o c ia t i o n .

2 A ll s u b s e q u e n t ta b u la tio n s ar e b a se d upon u s a b le r e s p o n s e s . The B u rea u did

not a tte m pt to w e ig h t the r e s p o n s e s to account for all 1, 306 q u e s t io n n a ir e s m a ile d out

because, to the Bureau's knowledge, these 1,306 associations designated by city m an ­

a gers do not constitute a com p lete list of all such organizations.

Table 9. Municipal public employee associations 

by region, 1968-69

Region 1

Associations Members

Number Percent Number Percent

T o t a l ----------------------------- 662 100. 0 264, 366 100. 0

New England--------------------------- 70 10. 5 6, 008 2. 2

Middle A tlantic ---------------------- 140 21. 1 101, 253 38. 3

East North Central -------------- 141 21. 2 19, 642 7. 4

West North C en tra l -------------- 17 2. 5 1,610 . 6

South A t l a n t i c ------------------------- 24 3. 6 9, 549 3. 6

East South C en tra l --------------- 16 2. 4 3, 611 1.4

West South C entral--------------- 13 2. 0 2, 983 1. 1

M o u n t a i n --------------------------------- 24 3. 6 4, 302 1 .6

P a c i f i c ------------------------------------- 217 32. 8 115, 408 43. 6

1 Th e r e g io n s in t h is stu dy inclu de: New England— Con necticu t, M aine, M a s s a ­

chusetts, New H am pshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Middle Atlantic— New Jersey ,

New York, and Pennsylvania; East North Central— Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,

and W isconsin; West North Central— Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, M issouri, Nebraska,

North Dakota, and South Dakota; South Atlantic----Delaware, District of Columbia, F lo r ­

ida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia;

East South Central----Alabama, Kentucky, M ississippi, and T en n essee; West South

Central----Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas; Mountain— Arizona, Colorado,

Idaho, Montana, New M exico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming; a n d P acific— Alaska,

California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.

NOTE: See footnote 2, table 7.

Table 8. Association membership by type of operation 

and city size, 1968-69

City size

Total

Type of operation1

Legislative

only

Representation

only Both

A sso ­

ciations Members A sso ­

ciations Members A sso ­

ciations Members A ssociations Members

T o ta l ___________________ 662 264, 366 37 19,930 210 20, 503 415 223, 933

1, 000, 000 and o v e r ---------------- 53 86, 876 2 14, 200 19 1, 260 32 71,416

500, 000-1, 000, 000 ---------------- 25 59,763 1 1,805 1 17 23 57, 941

250, 000-500, 000 -------------------- 24 17, 749 2 1, 159 6 3, 546 16 13, 044

100,000-250,000 -------------------- 55 24, 822 3 411 13 2, 753 39 21, 658

50,000-100, 000 ----------------------- 134 19,507 3 46 5 35 3, 904 96 15, 138

25,000-50,000 ------------------------ 194 16, 892 8 419 70 5, 701 116 10,772

10, 000-25, 000 ------------------------ 167 9, 259 16 1, 238 65 3, 305 86 4, 716

I n t e r c i t y ----------------------------------- 10 29, 498 2 233 1 17 7 29, 248

1 R e s p o n d en ts a n s w e r e d " yes" or "no" to the q u e s t io n s : (1) D o e s your o rg a n iza tio n p a r t ic ­

ipa te in l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s (i. e. , s e e k in g l e g i s l a t i v e support, s p o n s o r in g leg is la tio n ) on b ill s or

proposals pertaining to public e m p lo y e e s? , and (2) Does your organization, as one of its primary

functions, represent public em ployees on wages, working conditions, or grevances, e tc., in direct

dealings or meetings with supervisors or officials?

NOTE: See footnote 2, table 7.

Table 10. Percent distribution of union m embership, estimated 

government union membership, and membership in municipal public 

employee associations, 1968-69

Percent distribution of—

Region Union m em bership 196 8:

All industries 1

Estimated union

membership

1968: Government

employees 2

Membership

in municipal

public employee

associations,

1968-69 3

An states __________________ 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0

New England____________________ 5. 4 7. 5 2. 2

M iddle A t l a n t i c ---------------------------------------------------- 25. 2 22. 7 38. 3

E a s t North C e n t r a l ---------------------------------------------- 26. 3 20. 4 7. 4

W est North C e n t r a l ---------------------------------------------- 7. 2 7. 8 . 6

South A t l a n t i c ------------------------------------------------------- 8. 5 13. 0 3. 6

E a s t South C e n t r a l ---------------------------------------------- 3. 9 4. 0 1 .4

W est South C e n t r a l ---------------------------------------------- 4. 6 7. 1 1. 2

M o u n t a i n --------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 6 3. 4 1. 6

P a cific ------------------------------------------------------------------ 14. 9 11. 0 43. 6

N o n c la s s i f i a b l e ---------------------------------------------------- 1. 3 3. 0

1 D e r i v e d f r o m data p r e s e n t e d in the D i r e c t o r y of N ational and Interna tiona l Labor Unions

in the Unite d S ta te s , 1969 (BLS B u lletin I66"5j!

2 D e r i v e d f r o m data p r e s e n t e d in H a r r y P. Coh an y and L u c r e t ia M. D e w e y "Union M e m ­

b e r s h ip Am ong G o v er n m e n t E m p l o y e e s , " Monthly Lab or R e v i e w , July 1970.

3 S ee fo otn ote 2, ta b le 7.

NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 11. Municipal public employee associations by city size

and city type, 1968-69

City size

City type

Total Standard m

statistics

etropolitan

1 a r e a s 1

Nonmetre

are

apolitan

a s

A s s o c i a -

tions Members As s o c ia -

tions

Members A ssociations Members

T o ta l ..................................................... 662 264,366 533 234,968 129 29,398

1, 000, 000 and ov e r 53 86,876 53 86,876

50 0, 000 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 - - ................... 25 59,763 25 59, 763 - -

250,000-500, 000 ....................................... 24 17,749 24 17, 749 - -

100,000-250,000 ....................................... 55 24,822 55 24,822 - -

50 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 .......................................... 134 19,507 134 19,507 - -

25, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 ............................................... 194 16,892 139 11,649 55 5, 243

10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 ............................................... 167 9,259 99 5, 270 68 3, 989

Intercity ________ _____________________ 10 2 9 ,4 9 8 4 9, 332 6 20,166

1 To be d e fin e d a s a sta n d a r d m e t r o p o l it a n s t a t i s t i c a l a r e a , a city m u st (1) h a v e 5 0 , 0 0 0 or m o r e

inhabitants or, (2) be contiguous to another city of no fewer than 15,000 inhabitants, and form with that

city, for gen eral econom ic and social pu rp oses, a single community with a combined population of

50, 000.

NOTE: See footnote 2, table 7.

Table 12. M unicipal public employee associations 

by occupational composition, 1968-69

Occupational composition As s o c i a -

tions Members Percent

Total .......................................... .................................... 662 264,366 100. 0

Policemen or firemen ................... _ ... 347 106,967 40. 4

Professional, technical and

clerical only ______________________________________ 78 20,118 7. 6

Blue-collar or manual crafts only ............................. 18 2,478 0. 9

Policem en or firemen, professional,

technical, clerical, blue-collar or

manual crafts ______ _______ _____ ________ ______ 110 69,240 26. 1

Professional, technical, clerical,

policemen or fir e m e n __________________________ 56 7, 333 2. 7

Professional, technical, clerical,

blue-collar or manual crafts __________________ 48 56,959 21. 5

Policemen or firemen, blue-collar or

manual crafts------------------------------ ---------------------- 5 1, 271 (M

Total 2 .............................................................................. 662 264,366 100. 0

Policem en and fir e m e n __________________________ 518 124,282 47. 0

Professional, technical, and clerical .................. 292 80, 916 30. 6

Blue-collar or manual c r a fts ___________________ 181 59, 168 22. 3

1 L e s s tha n 0. 5 p e r c e n t.

2 N on ad d itive.

NOTE: See footnote 2, table 7.

Table 13. Municipal public employee associations 

by jurisdiction, 1968-69

Jurisdiction Associations Membership

T o ta l .................. ........................... ......................................... — _ 662 264,366

City on ly ___-------- --------------- ----------------------------------- ------- 580 179,425

City and state .................... ......................... .............................. .......... 2 312

City and county ------------------------------------------ --------------------- 16 5, 069

City, state, county ____________ ______ __________________ 18 7, 154

City, school d istrict ________ ____________________________ 18 39,709

C ity, s p e c i a l d i s t r i c t s 1 2............. ........................ ........................... 11 6, 683

City and p r i v a t e __________________________________________ 1 27

City, county, school district------------------------------------------ 1 3,832

City, state, private ........................................... .............................. 2 94

C ity, co unty, s p e c i a l d i s t r i c t s 1 -------- -------------------------- 1 280

City, state, county, school d istrict .................... ................... 1 1, 310

City, county, school district, special

d i s t r i c t s 1 _______________________________________________ 1 18,000

City, state, county, private ------------------------------------------ 1 181

City, state, county, special districts 1------------------------ 9 2, 290

T o t a l 2 .................................................-.......................................... 662 264,366

662 206,529

County ____________________________________________________ 48 36,471

School d istrict ----------------------------------------------------------------- 21 11,824

Special districts 1_________________________________________ 22 6,967

State _________ ____________________________-............... ............... 33 2, 506

Private ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 69

1 In c lu d e s m e m b e r s w o r k in g for p o r t, w a t e r , and t r a n s i t a u t h o r it ie s and s o m e

Federal Government m em bers.

2 No n a d d itiv e.

Table 14. Municipal public employee association membership 

by civil service codes or regulations, 1968-69

Percent covered by civil service

codes or regulations Associations Members

covered

Members

not covered

T o ta l ...................................... ........ ................................. 662 231, 600 32,766

100 percent .............................................................................. 429 190,248

90 and under 100 p ercen t.................. .............................. 34 11, 733 811

80 and under 90 p e r c en t .................................................. 14 23, 716 4, 317

70 and under 80 p e r c e n t _________________________ 12 3,936 1, 388

50 and under 70 p e r c e n t _____________________ ____ 13 968 623

U n der 50 p e r c e n t _________________________________ 9 999 2, 760

None covered or reported _______________________ 151 "

22,867

NOTE: See footnote 2, table 7.

NOTE: Sefe footnote 2, table 7.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 15. Municipal public employee associations by founding dates and city size, 1968-69

City size Total

Founding dates

1890-99 1900-09 1910-19 1920-29 1930-39 1940-49 1950-59 1960-69

Not

reported

Total --------------------------------- 662 8 15 23 27 84 104 136 215 50

1, 000, 000 and o v e r --------------------- 53 2 2 1 2 4 8 11 22 1

500, 000-1, 000, 000 --------------------- 25 1 5 1 2 3 2 2 7 2

250, 000-500, 000 ------------------------- 24 _ - 1 _ 4 6 3 7 3

100, 000-250, 000 ------------------------- 55 1 1 3 6 10 7 12 14 1

50, 000-100, 000 ---------------------------- 134 2 4 8 6 17 22 34 31 10

25, 000-50, 000 ----------------------------- 194 1 3 6 4 29 30 45 59 17

10, 000-25, 000 ----------------------------- 167 - - 3 7 15 26 28 74 14

I n t e r c i t y ---------------------------------------- 10 1 “ " " 2 3 1 1 2

NO TE: See footno te 2, ta ble 7.

Table 16. M embership growth of municipal public 

employee associations by region, 1962-68

Region A s s o c ia -

tions

1968

m em bers

1962

mem bers

M e m b e r ship

growth

1962-68

Members Percent

Total -------------------- 460 241, 665 187, 843 53, 822 28. 7

New England ---------------- 32 4, 032 3, 107 925 29. 8

Middle A t l a n t i c ------------- 106 94, 442 67, 338 27, 104 40. 3

East North Central------ 86 16, 293 13, 893 2, 400 17. 3

West North C e n t r a l ----- 13 1, 346 1, 010 336 33. 3

South A tla n tic --------------- 18 8, 641 6, 022 2, 619 43. 5

East South C e n tr a l ------ 15 3, 560 1, 890 1, 670 88. 4

West South C entral------ 9 2, 320 1, 314 1, 006 80. 7

M ountain ----------------------- 18 3, 567 2, 606 961 36. 9

P a c i f i c --------------------------- 163 107, 464 90, 663 16, 801 18. 5

NOTE: S ee fo otn ote 2, ta ble 7.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 17. Affiliations of municipal public employee associations by type of operation, 1968-69

Affiliation

Total

Type of operation

Legislative only Representation only Both

A ssociations Members A ssociations Members A ssociations Members A ssocia-

____UQOS____

M e m b e r s

662 264, 366 37 19,930 210 20, 503 415 223, 933

Associations reporting affiliati on — 397 169, 662 32 8, 206 68 6, 581 297 154, 875

P o l i c e a f f i l i a t i o n s ----------------------- 259 89, 283 30 8, 047 20 893 209 80, 343

Fraternal Order of Police

(FOP)------------------------------------- 113 25, 410 19 2, 330 2 84 92 22, 996

Police benevolent associatio n s -------------------------------------- 20 2, 808 1 60 1 116 18 2, 632

State police associations------- 113 47, 682 8 3, 784 14 501 91 43, 397

Other police associat io n s 1 ------------------------------------ 13 13, 383 2 1, 873 3 192 8 11, 318

State firemen affiliations----------- 22 1, 388 2 159 10 561 10 668

Affiliations of state, county,

and municipal employees---------- 91 61, 062 - - 27 4, 504 64 56, 558

Statewide associations----------- 76 48, 149 - - 20 2, 998 56 45, 151

I n tra s ta te a s s o c i a t i o n s ---------- 15 12, 913 - - 7 1, 506 8 11, 407

Affiliations of n u rses ----------------- 11 4, 651 - - 5 325 6 4, 326

L i c e n s e d P r a c t i c a l N u r s e s — 1 3, 000 - - - - 1 3, 000

American Nurses Associat io n --------------- --------------------- 10 1, 651 - - 5 325 5 1, 326

Other occupational affiliatio n s 2— ------------------------------------- 14 13, 278 - ' 6 298 8 12, 980

No affiliation or none reported ------- 265 94, 704 5 11, 724 142 13, 922 118 69, 058

1 I n clu d es 11 in tr a sta te p o lic e a s s o c i a t i o n s and 2 a s s o c i a t i o n s a ffilia ted only with the International C o n fe r e n c e of P o l i c e

A s s o c ia t io n s (ICPA). 10 additional a sso cia tio n s reported affiliations with the ICPA and a lso with a Statewide a s s o c ia tio n included

under State police associations.

2 A l l a f filia t io n s in clu ded a r e at the lo ca l, r e g io n a l, or sta te l e v e l and a r e c o n c e r n e d with s p e c if ic o c c u p a tio n s such a s

pu b li c s c h o o l c u s to d ia n s and edu catio nal s e c r e t a r i e s . A l s o in clu d ed w e r e 2 a s s o c i a t i o n s w h ic h r e p o r te d m u lt ip le a ffilia tio n s .

NO TE: S ee footnote 2, table 7.

Table 18. Annual dues for municipal public employee associations by type of operation, 1968-69

Annual dues

Total

Type of operation

Legislative only Representation only Both

A ssociations Members A ssociations Members A ssociations Members A ssociations Members

T otal ---------------------------------------- 662 264, 366 37 19, 930 210 20, 503 415 223, 933

Total reporting dues information— 600 248, 449 36 8. 930 175 18. IQ&___ 389 221.361

L e s s than $ 5 . 0 0 --------------------------- 63 5, 569 4 670 33 2, 450 26 2, 449

$ 5 . 0 0 -$ 9 . 9 9 --------------------------------- 132 17, 892 14 1, 146 35 3, 578 83 13, 168

$10. 00-$ 14.99 ------------------------------ 173 42, 675 10 488 52 7, 481 111 34, 706

$ 1 5 .0 0 -$ 1 9 . 9 9 ------------------------------ 37 28, 755 2 1, 819 8 1, 940 27 24, 996

$20. 00-$ 24 .9 9 ------------------------------ 56 41, 644 5 1, 607 14 767 37 39,270

$ 2 5 . 0 0 -$ 2 9 . 9 9 ------------------------------ 33 25, 182 - - 6 531 27 24, 651

$30. 00-$ 39 .9 9 ------------------------------ 38 20, 063 1 3, 200 10 511 27 16, 352

$ 40. 0 0 - $ 4 9 . 9 9 ------------------------------ 15 9, 254 - - 3 80 12 9, 174

$ 5 0 . 0 0 and o v e r --------------------------- 53 57, 465 - - 14 870 39 56, 595

No dues or none reported ---------------- 62 15, 867 1 11,000 35 2, 295 26 2, 572

NOTE: See footnote 2, table 7,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 19. Type of recognition for municipal public employee associations by city size, 1968-69

City size Total

Type of recognition

No reply 1

For mal Informal

A ssociations Members As s o c i a -

tions Members A ssociations Members A ssociations Members

T o t a l __________________________ 662 264,366 393 171, 352 224 72,370 45 20, 644

1, 000, 000 and o v e r _________________ 53 86,876 43 62,652 7 10,015 3 14, 209

500,000-1,000, 000 ________________ 25 59, 763 18 37,088 6 20, 870 1 1, 805

250, 000-500, 000 ___________________ 24 17,749 12 5, 424 10 11, 166 2 1, 159

100,000-250,000 __________________ 55 2 4 ,8 2 2 32 15,929 20 8, 482 3 411

5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ___________________ 134 19,507 87 13,270 42 5, 391 5 846

2 5 , 0 0 0 —50, 000 ____________________ 194 16,892 102 8, 591 82 7, 825 10 476

10,000-25,000 ___________________ 167 9, 259 94 4, 633 54 3, 121 19 1, 505

Intercity ------------------------------------------- 10 29,498 5 23, 765 3 5, 500 2 233

1 Included 37 a s s o c i a t io n s with 19, 930 m e m b e r s that did not e n g a g e in e m p lo y e e r e p r e s e n t a t io n a c t i v i t i e s and 8 a s s o c i a ­

tions with 714 m em bers that failed to reply.

NOTE: See footnote 2, table 7.

Table 20. Type of documents used to record the results of negotiations

by type of recognition, 1968-69

T nfa 1

Type of recognition

No recognition

Document F o r m a l reported Informal

A ssociations Members A ssociations Members As s o c i a -

tions Members As s o c i a -

tions Members

Total -------------------------------------- 662 264,366 393 171,352 224 72, 370 45 20, 644

Association reporting: 1

N e gotia tion s r e su lt s r e co r d e d __ 531 213, 321 385 170, 483 146 42,838 _ _

Written agreem ent ______________ 216 101, 752 202 99, 061 14 2, 691

Memoranda of understanding ___ 123 39,950 73 32,286 50 7, 664

Ordinances ______________________ 186 115,066 1 16 82,100 70 32,966

Personnel regulations __________ 164 145, 734 108 117,562 56 28, 172 _ _

Other d o cu m en ts 2 _______________ 59 69, 690 37 61, 932 22 7, 758 _ _

No document reported _________ 86 30, 401 8 869 78 29,532 _

No recognition reported3_______ 45 20, 644

- -

45 20, 644

1 Nonadditive. Many a s s o c i a t i o n s r e p o r te d m o r e than 1 type of d o cu m en t. (S ee append ix table A-19 for a d d itiv e d i s ­

tribution. )

2 P r i n c ip a l a m on g "Other" w e r e : M in utes of m e e t in g s with m a y o r s and c ity c o u n c ils ; cit y c o u n c il p o lic y s ta t e m e n ts ;

city policy manuals, and civil service rules.

3 See footnote 1, table 19.

NOTE: See footnote 2, table 7.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 21. Frequency of meetings by type of recognition, 1968-69

Meeting frequency

Total

Type of recognition

No reply 1

Formal Informal

A s so c iations Members A s s o c i -

ations Members A sso ciations Members A s s o c i -

ations Members

T o t a l _ ______ . 662 264,366 393 171,352 224 72,370 45 20,644

A ssociations reporting

meeting frequency ................................. 611 242,680 390 170,570 221 72, 110 - -

Regularly ................................ ................. 79 53, 920 58 4 5 ,7 6 5 21 8, 155

Irregu larly .................... ........................ 522 167,967 324 105,176 198 62, 791 _ _

Regularly and irregularly _____ 10 20,793 8 19,629 2 1, 164 - -

No rep ly ............................................................ 51 21,686 3 782 3 260 45 20,644

1 S e e footnote 1, t a b le 19.

NOTE: See footnote 2, table 7.

Table 22. Distribution of associations and

membership by issues discussed, 1968-69

Issues discussed A s s o c i -

ations Members

T o ta l ........ .............................. 662 264,366

Associations reporting issues

d iscu sse d __________________________ 619 243,060

Pay m atters- 604 239,928

Working conditions 537 234,420

Fringe benefits .................... .. 550 220,230

Grievance procedures 492 213, 943

Job classifications ................ 413 184,418

Promotions or promotion

p o lic y _ _ 332 160,579

D isch a rg es ___________ _____ _____ 293 152,441

Other m a t t e r s 1 ................................... 24 8, 036

No r e p l y 2 _ .... ................................... 43 21, 306

1 In c lu d e s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , l e g i s l a t i o n , c iv i l s e r v i c e

system s, disciplinary trials, and civilian review hearings,

2 In c lu d e s 37 a s s o c i a t i o n s with 1 9 , 9 3 0 m e m b e r s that

did not engage in employee representation activities and

6 a s s o c i a t i o n s with 1 , 3 7 6 m e m b e r s that fa il e d to lis t

issues discussed.

NOTE: See footnote 2, table 7.

Table 23. Role of municipal public employee associations in grievance cases

by type of recognition, 1968-69

Role

Total

Type of recognition No recognition

reported 1 F o r m a l Informal

A s s o c i -

ations Members A s s o c i -

ations M e m b e r s A sso ciations Members A s s o c i -

ations Members

T o ta l .... ............................................................. ............. 662 264,366 393 171,352 224 72,370 45 20,644

Associations reporting grievance role ......... 583 237,618 376 167,065 207 70,553

Represent aggrieved ____ _____________________ 478 211,458 328 162,253 150 49,205

Act as an ob server ___________________________ 61 1 7 ,6 1 0 31 3, 576 30 1 4 ,0 3 4 _ _

Be notified of outcome ________________________ 8 844 4 392 4 452 _ _

No r o le .... ..... _ _ ........ 36 7, 706 13 844 23 6,862 - -

No response to grievance question ______________ 34 6, 104 17 4, 287 17 1 ,8 1 7 _ _

No r e c o g n it io n r e p o r t e d __________________________ 45 20,644 - “ 45 20,644

S e e f o o tn o te 1, tab le 19.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix A. Supplemental tables

A-l through A-18, employee organization by government activity 

and city size, 1968-69.

A-19 through A-21, type of documents used to record results of 

negotiations by type of recognition and city size, 1968-69.

21

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-l. Cities with employees represented by the International

Association of Fire Fighters (AFL-CIO), by government

activity, 1968-69

City size

Total cities

reporting

unions or

a sso ciations

Total cities

reporting

IAFF

Activity

Police

protection

Fire

protection

T o t a l s ----------------------------------------------------------- 1,033 579 1 578

1,000,000 or m o re _______________________________ 4 4 4

500, 000-1,000, 000.. _____________________________ 19 18 - 18

2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ............................................................. 23 20 - 20

1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ................................................................... 61 51 - 51

50, 000-100, 000 ................................ ................................... 171 119 - 119

2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 .................................................. ..................... 287 169 - 169

10,000-25, 000..;........... ..................................... ................... 468 198 1 197

Table A-2. Cities with employees represented by the American Federation of State,

County and Municipal Employees (AFL-CIO), by activity, 1968-69

City size

Totals

1,000, 000 and over

500 .0 0 0 - 1,000,000.

2 5 0 .0 0 0 - 500,000 ...

100, 000-250, 000 ...

5 0 .0 0 0 - 100,000 __

2 5 .0 0 0 - 5 0 ,0 0 0 __

10.000- 25, 000 ....

Total cities

reporting

unions or

asso ciations

Total cities

reporting

AFSCME

Activity

Police

protection

Fire

protection

Public

works

Public

utilities

Public

health and

hospitals

Education

(noninstructional)

Parks and

recreation

Public

welfare

All other

activities

1,033 344 68 18 300 152 47 50 190 26 154

4 4 4 3 3 1 4 2 4

19 14 2 1 10 7 6 3 8 3 9

23 1? 3 2 12 8 5 1 10 2 11

61 28 8 - 23 16 6 8 21 6 21

171 71 12 2 67 30 9 9 45 5 34

287 99 20 4 88 42 10 11 63 8 40

468 115 23 9 96 46 8 17 39 "

35

NOTE: N o n a d d itiv e . Man y c i t i e s r e p o r te d unions in m o r e than 1 a c tiv ity .

Table A-3. Cities with employees represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Ind.), by activity, 1968-69

City size

Total cities

reporting

unions or

asso ciations

Total cities

reporting

IBT

Activity

Police

protection

Fire

protection

Public

works

Public

utilities

Public

health and

hospitals

Education

(noninstructional)

Parks and

recreation

Public

welfare

All other

activities

Totals ______________________________________ 1,033 98 14 6 74 27 8 4 30 4 25

1,000,000 or m o r e _______________________________ 4 2 2 2 2 _ 1 2

500,000-1,000,000 ..................................... ................. ........ 19 8 - - 7 4 2 1 4 - 3

250,000-500,000 _______ ________ ________ ________ 23 7 1 1 6 1 - - 3 - 2

100,000-250,000 ____________ ______________ _____ 61 12 - - 9 4 1 - 6 - 4

50, 000- 100, 000 _________ _________ _______________ 171 14 1 1 11 3 2 2 5 2 4

25,000-50,000 ......................................................................... 287 24 3 2 16 5 - - 5 - 4

10,000-25, 000 .......................................................................... 468 31 9 2 23 8 1 1 7 1 6

NO TE: N o n a d d itiv e . M an y c i t i e s r e p o r te d un ions in m o r e than 1 ac tivity ,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-4. Cities with employees represented by Building Trades Unions, by activity, 1968-69

City size

Total

cities

reporting

unions or

as s o c ia -

tions

Total

cities

reporting

building

trades

unions

Activity

Fire

protection

Public

works

Public

utilities

Public

health and

hospitals

Education

(noninstructional)

Parks

and

recreation

Public

welfare

All

other

activities

T o t a l ---------------------------------------- 1, 033 55 1 42 36 4 5 17 1 19

1,000, 000 or more ------------------------- 4 3

_ 3 1 2 1 3 1 3

500,000-1,000,000 ------------------------- 19 6 - 6 6 2 2 5 - 3

250, 000-500, 000 ----------------- ------------ 23 8 - 7 5 - 1 3 - 4

100,000-250, 000 ------------------------------ 61 9 - 7 3 - 1 2 - 4

5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 -------------------------------- 171 8 - 7 3 - - - - 2

2 5 ,0 0 0 -5 0 ,0 0 0 ---------------------------------- 287 3 - 1 2 - - - - 2

1 0 ,0 00-25,000 ---------------------------------- 468 18 1 11 16 4 1

NOTE : Non ad ditive . Many c it i e s r e p o r te d union s in m o r e than 1 a c tiv ity .

Table A-5. Cities with employees represented by the Laborers’ International Union of

North America (AFL-CIO), by activity, 1968-69

City size

Total

cities

reporting

unions or

as s o c ia -

tions

Total

cities

reporting

LIUNA

Activity

Police

protection

Fire

protection

Public

works

Public

utilities

Public

health and

hospitals

Education

(noninstructional)

Parks

and

recreation

All

other

activities

T o t a l ---------------------------------------- 1,033 40 2 1 34 12 3 3 11 12

1,000,000 or m o re -------------------------- 4 1

. _ . .

1

5 0 0 ,0 0 0 -1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 -------------------------- 19 7 - - 6 4 2 2 3 3

250,000-500,000 ------------------------------ 23 2 - - 2 1 _ - 2 1

100,000-250,000 ------------------------------ 61 5 - - 3 _ 1 _ 2 1

5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 _____________________ 171 2 1 - 1 1 _ _ _ _

2 5 ,0 0 0 -5 0 ,0 0 0 ______________________ 287 9 - - 8 2 _ 1 4 1

10,000-25, 000 ______________________ 468 14 1 1 14 4 5

NOTE: Nonadditive. Many cities reported unions in more than 1 activity.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-6. Cities with employees represented by the Service Employees International Union (AFL-CIO), by

activity, 1968-69

City size

T otal

cities

reporting

unions or

a s s o c ia t io n s

Total

cit ie s

repo rting

SEIU

Activity

Police

protection

Fire

protection

Public

works

Public

utilities

Public

health and

hospitals

Education

(noninstructional)

Parks

and

recreation

Public

welfare

All

other

activities

T o t a l s ----------------- 1, 033 37 2 1 27 13 8 6 15 1 16

1,000, 000 or m o r e ------ 4 3 3

. 3 1 1 _ 3

500, 000-1, 000, 000 ------ 19 8 - - 7 3 2 2 4 - 3

250,000-500,000 ---------- 23 1 - - - - - 1 - - -

100,000-250,000 ---------- 61 5 1 - 2 2 1 1 3 - 4

50,000-100,000 ------------- 171 5 - - 4 3 - - 2 - 2

25, 000-50, 000 -------------- 287 7 - 1 4 1 - - 2 1 2

10, 000-25, 000 -------------- 468 8 1 7 4 2 1 3 "

2

NOTE : N o n a d d itiv e . Many c it i e s re p o r te d unions in m o r e than 1 a c tiv ity .

Table A-7. Cities with employees represented by other unions, by activity, 1968-69

City size

T otal

cities

reporting

unions or

as s o c ia t io n s

Total

cities

reporting

other

unions

Activity

Police

protection

Fire

protection

Public

works

Public

utilities

Public

health and

hospitals

Education

(noninstructional)

Parks

and

recreation

Public

welfare

All

other

activities

T o t a l s ----------------- 1, 033 129 21 17 49 59 1 1 7 23 5 37

1, 000, 000 or m o r e ------ 4 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2

500, 000-1,000, 000 ------ 19 6 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 4

250, 000-500, 000 ---------- 23 2 - - 1 1 - - - - 1

100,000-250,000 ---------- 61 24 - 3 8 9 3 2 5 - 9

50,000-100,000 ----------- 171 20 3 2 4 7 3 - 2 2 6

25, 000-50, 000 -------------- 287 38 7 4 13 20 - - 5 - 5

10, 000-25, 000 -------------- 468 36 10 6 17 17 *

1 7 -

10

NOTE: Nonadditive Many cities reported unions in more than 1 activity

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-8. Cities with employees represented by the Fraternal Order of Police, by

activity, 1968-69

City size

Total cities

reporting

unions or

a sso ciations

Total cities

reporting

FOP

Activity

Police

protection

Fire

protection

Public

health and

hospitals

All other

activities

T o ta l _______________________________________ 1,033 375 373 2 1 2

1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 or m o r e _______________________________ 4 2 2

500, 000-1,000,000 ......... .................. ........ .......................... 19 8 8 - - 1

250, 000-500, 000. ................. ................................................ 23 10 10 - - -

i o o , 000- 2 5 0 , o o a ............................................................ . 61 27 27 - 1 -

50, 000-100, 000 ................................................................ . 171 65 65 - - -

2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 .......................................................... ............. 287 96 94 2 - -

10, 000-25, 0 0 0 ................................................................... . 468 167 167 “

1

NOTE: Nonadditive. S o m e c i t i e s r e p o r te d m o r e tha n 1 a c tiv ity .

Table A-9. Cities with employees represented by other associations, by activity, 1968-69

City size

'Total c it i e s

reporting

unions or

asso ciations

Total cities

reporting

other

a sso ciations

Activity

Police

protection

Fire

protection

Public

works

Public

utilities

Public

health and

hospitals

Education

(noninstructional)

Parks and

recreation

Public

welfare

All other

activities

T o t a l ________________________________________ 1, 033 525 420 224 226 114 65 39 193 35 230

1,000,000 or m o r e _______________________________ 4 3 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3

500, 000-1,000, 000 ............................................................ . 19 11 11 5 6 4 3 3 5 1 5

250,000-500,000 ____ _________________________ 23 17 11 7 9 8 7 1 9 1 10

100, 000-250,000 _______ _____________ _____ _____ 61 38 26 15 15 13 18 9 18 5 19

50,000-100, 000 ____ ___________________ ________ 171 95 72 37 49 23 12 7 49 12 53

25, 0 0 0 -5 0 ,0 0 0 .. _____ _________________ ______ ____ 287 151 126 68 67 29 14 10 57 10 67

10, 000-25, 000 ___________ ___________ ____________ 468 210 172 91 77 36 8 8 52 5 73

NOTE: Nonadditive. Many cities reported more than 1 activity.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-10. Membership affiliation of police protection employees, 1968-69

City size

Cities

reporting

unions

or

asso cia ­

tions

(A)

Cities

reporting

organized

police

protection

employees

_____£1___

Affiliation 1

AFSCME SEIU LIUNA IBT

Cities

Percent

of

___ LAI .

Percent

of

(B)

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

T o t a l --------------------------------------- 1,033 854 68 7 8 2 (2) (2) 2 (2) (2) 14 1 2

1, 000, 000 and o v e r ------------------------- 4 4

500,000-1,000, 000 -------------------------- 19 17 2 1 1 12 _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

Z50,000-500, 000 ------------------------------ 23 21 3 13 14 - _ - _ _ _ 1 4 5

100,000-250, 000 ------------------------------ 61 58 8 13 14 1 2 2 _ _ _ _ _ _

50,000-100, 000 ------------------------------- 171 150 12 7 8 - _ _ 1 1 1 1 1 1

25, 000 50, 000 --------- ------------- — 287 239 20 7 8 _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 1 1

10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 000 --------------------------------- 468 365 23 5 6 1 (2) (2) 1 (2) (2) 9 2 2

IAFF Other unions FOP Other associations

T o t a l ------------------------------------------ 1 (2) (2) 21 2 2 373 36 44 429 42 50

1, 000, 000 and o v e r ---------------------------- 2 50 50 2 50 50

500,000-1, 000, 000 ---------------------------- — - - - 1 5 6 8 42 47 1 1 58 65

25 0, 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 000 -------------------------------- — — - - - - - - 10 43 48 1 1 48 52

100, 000-250, 000 - - --------------- ------ - - - 2 3 3 27 44 47 27 44 47

5 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 000 ----------------------------------— -------- ------ - - - 4 2 3 65 38 43 80 47 53

25,000-50, 000 ------------------------------------ - - - 7 2 3 94 33 39 126 44 53

10,000-25,000 ------------------------------------ — — 1 (2) (2) 7 1 2 167 36 46 172 37 47

1 Un ion a b b r e v i a ti o n s a r e as f o ll o w s : A F S C M E — A m e r i c a n F e d e r a ti o n of St ate, County and M u n icip a l E m p l o y e e s ; SEIU— S e r v i c e E m p l o y e e s I n tern ation al Union; LIUNA— L a b o r e r s ' I n t er n a ­

tional Union of North A m erica; IBT— International Brotherhood of Team sters; IAFF— International A ssociation of F ire Fighters; and FOP— Fraternal Order of Police.

2 L e s s than 0. 5 p e r c e n t .

NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-l 1. Membership affiliation of fire protection employees, 1968-69

Affiliation 1

City size

unions

or

organized

fire AFSCME SEIU LIUNA Building Trades IBT

as s o c i a - protection Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

tio ns e m p lo y e e s Citie s of of C itie s of of C itie s of of Cities of of Cities of of

JA) ___ . -IB) _____(A i__ (B) _ _ (A),_ „ (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)

Total------ ----------- 1, 033 787 18 2 2 1 (1 2 ) (2 ) 1 (2 ) _ (2 ) 1 (2 ) (2 ) 6 1 1

1, 000, 000 and o v e r ____ 4 4

500, 000-1, 000, 000 _____ 19 19 1 5 5 _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

250,000-500, 000 ______ 23 23 2 9 9 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 4 4

100,000-250,000 _____ 61 61 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

50,000-100, 000 _______ 171 155 2 1 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 1

?.5, 000- 5 0 , nnn . _ . 287 235 4 1 2 1 (2 ) (2 ) 2 1 1

10, 000-25, 000 _________ 468 290 9 2 3 1 (2 ) (2 ) 1 (2) (2) 2 (2 ) 1

IAFF Other unions FOP Other associations

Total _ . . . . . . . 578 56 73 17 2 2 2 (2 ) — . A (2 )1__

232 22 29

1 , 000, 000 and nvt>r ....... 4 100 100

"

1 25 25

500, 000-1, 000, 000 .. ... 18 95 95 2 11 11 I I 5 26 26

250.000-500.000 20 87 87 7 30 30

i on, 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , non 51 84 84 2 3 3 16 26 26

50, 00 0-1 00, 000 _. .. _ ............................................. . ... ___ ________ 119

169

197

70 77 2 1 1 43

68

92

25

24

20

28

29

32

2 5 , 0 0 0 —5 0 , 0 0 0 . .................................................... 59

42

72 4 1 2 2 1 1

10 0 0 0 -2 5 , 000 _ 68 7 1 2

1 S ee fo otn ote 1, table A - 10.

2 L e s s than 0. 5 p e r c e n t.

NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-12. Membership affiliation of public works employees, 1968-69

Cities Cities Affiliation 1 reporting reporting

City size

unions

or

organized

public AFSCME SEIU LIUNA Building Trades

asso cia ­ works Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

tions employees Cities of of Cities of of Cities of of Cities of of

(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)

T o t a l ________________ 1,033 621 300 29 48 27 3 4 34 3 5 42 4 7

1 , DOf), 000 and nvpr 4 4 4 100 100 3 75 75 3 75 75

500,000-1,000,000 19 17 10 53 59 7 37 41 6 32 35 6 32 35

2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 _________ 23 16 12 70 75 - - - 2 9 13 7 30 44

1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 _________ 61 49 23 38 78 2 3 4 3 5 6 7 11 14

50,000-100,000 __________ 171 121 67 39 55 4 2 3 1 1 1 7 4 6

2 5 ,0 0 0 -5 0 ,0 0 0 ____________ 287 182 88 31 48 4 1 2 8 3 4 1 (2) 1

10, 0 0 0 -2 5 ,0 0 0 ......................... 468 232 96 21 41 7 1 3 14 3 6 11 2 5

IBT Other unions Other associations

T o ta l ----- ---------------- 75 7 12 48 5 8 228 22 37

1 , 0 0 0 , 000 and o v e r _ _ ___________ ___________ _________ _________ 2 50 50 3 75 75 3 75 75

^ 00,000-1,000,000 8 42 47 3 16 18 6 32 35

? R0 , 0 0 0 — 500, 000 .................................... _ ____________________ _ _____ 6 26 38 1 4 6 9 39 56

100,000-7=10,000 ................... 9 15 18 8 13 16 16 26 33

=10 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 000 __________ ________ __ _ . __ _ ___ ______ . 11 6 9 4 2 3 50 29 41

2 5 ,0 0 0 -5 0 ,0 0 0 ......................... 16 6 9 13 5 7 67 23 37

1 0 ,0 0 0 -2 5 ,000_ ....................... 23 5 10 16 3 7 77 16 33

1 S e e fo otn ote 1, tab le A - 10.

2 L e s s tha n 0. 5 p e r c e n t.

NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-13. Membership affiliation of public utilities employees, 1968-69

City size

Cities

reporting

unions or

as s o c i a -

tions

(A)

Cities

reporting

organized

public

utilities

employees

(B)

Affiliation 1

AFSCME SEIU LIUNA Building Trade s

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

T o ta l ---------------------- 1, 033 331 152 15 46 13 1 4 12 1 4 36 3 11

1, 000, 000 and o v e r ------- 4 3 3 75 100 1 25 33

500, 000-1,000, 0 0 0 --------- 19 11 7 37 64 3 16 27 4 21 36 6 32 55

250,000-500,000 ------------- 23 13 8 35 62 - _ _ 1 4 8 5 22 38

100, 000 250, 000 - -- - 61 32 16 26 50 2 3 6 _ _ _ 3 5 9

50,000 100,000— - - 171 60 30 18 50 3 2 5 1 1 2 3 2 5

25, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 000 ----------------- 28 7 95 42 15 44 1 (2)

1

1 2 1 2 2 1 2

10, 000 25, 000 ----- - - 468 117 46 10 39 4 3 4 1 3 16 3 14

IBT Other unions Other associations

T o ta l ----------------------- 28 3 8 59 6 18 115 11 35

1, 000, 000 and o v e r -------- 2 50 67 2 50 67 1 25 33

500, 000-1, 000, 000 ---------- 5 26 45 3 16 27 4 21 36

250,000 500, 000 - ---------- 1 4 8 1 4 8 8 35 62

1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 -------------- 4 7 13 9 15 28 13 21 41

50,000-100,000 ------- ---- 3 2 5 8 5 13 24 14 40

25, 000 50, 000 --------------- 5 2 5 20 7 21 29 10 31

10, 000 25, 000 --------------- 8 2 7 16 3 14 36 8 31

1 S e e f o o tn o te 1, ta b le A - 1 0 ,

2 L e s s than 0. 5 p e r c e n t .

NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-14. Membership affiliation of public health and hospital employees, 1968-69

City size

Cities

reporting

unions or

as s o c i a -

tions

(A)

Cities

reporting

organized

health and

hospital

employees

(B)

Affiliation 1

AFSCME SEIU LIUNA Building Trade s

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

T o t a l ---------------------- 1,033 114 47 5 41 8 1 7 3 (2) 3 4 (1 2) 4

1,000, 000 and o v e r --------- 4 4 3 75 75 3 75 75 2 50 50

500,000-1,000, 000 --------- 19 9 6 32 67 2 11 22 2 1 1 22 2 11 22

250,000-500, 000 ------------- 23 10 5 22 50 - - - - - - - - -

100,000-250, 000 ------------- 61 26 6 10 23 1 2 4 1 2 4 - - -

50,000-100, 000 -------------- 171 24 9 5 38 - - - - - - - - -

25, 000-50, 000 ----------------- 287 23 10 3 43 - - - - - - - - -

10,000-25, 000 ----------------- 468 18 8 2 44 2 (2) 11 “ - "

IBT Other unions FOP Other associations

T o t a l -----------------------

... _. .. 9 1 8 10 1 9 1 (2) 1 68 7 60

1, 000, 000 and o v e r --------- 2 50 50 2 50 50 _ _ 3 75 75

500,000-1,000, 000 ---------- — 3 16 33 3 16 33 - - - 4 21 44

250,000-500, 000 -------------- - - - - - - - - - 7 30 70

100,000-250, 000 -------------- 1 2 4 3 5 12 1 2 4 18 30 69

50,000-100,000 --------------- 2 1 8 2 1 8 - - - 14 8 58

25, 000-50, 000 ------------------ — - - - - - - - - - 14 5 61

10, 000-25, 000 ------------------ 1 (2) 6 “ * ~

8 2 44

1 S e e fo o tn o te 1, t a b le A - 10.

2 L e s s th an 0 . 5 p e r c e n t .

NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A -15. Membership affiliation of noninstructional educational employees, 1968-69

City size

Cities

reporting

unions

or

asso ciations

(A)

Cities

reporting

organized

noninstructional

education

e m p lo y e e s

(B)

Affiliation 1

AFSCME SEIU LIUNA Building Trades

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

Cities

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

T o ta l __________________________ 1,033 86 50 5 58 6 1 7 3 (2) 3 5 (2) 6

1 , 0 0 0 , 000 and o v e r __________________ 4 1 1 25 100 1 25 100 . 1 25 100

500, 000-1,000,000 _________________ 19 5 3 16 60 2 11 40 2 11 40 2 11 40

250, 000-500, 000.____________________ 23 2 1 4 50 1 4 50 - - - 1 4 50

100, 000-250, 000 ____________________ 61 16 8 13 50 1 2 6 - - - 1 2 6

50,000-100,000 _____________________ 171 16 9 5 56 - - - - - - - - -

25,000-50,000 .............................................. 287 20 11 4 55 - - - 1 (2) 5 - - -

10, 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 000 _______________________ 468 26 17 4 65 1 (2) 4 “ “

Other unions Other associations

Total

1,000, 000 and over.

5 0 0 .0 0 0 - 1,000,000.

250, 000-500, 000 ...

100, 000-250, 000 ....

5 0 . 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 00Q___

2 5 .0 0 0 - 5 0 ,0 0 0 _

10.000- 2 5 ,0 0 0 _

4 (2) 5 7 1 8 37 4 43

1 25 100 1 25 100

1 5 20 3 16 60 2 11 40

_ _ _ _ _ 1 4 50

_ _ _ 2 3 13 9 15 56

2 1 13 _ _ _ 6 4 38

_ _ _ _ _ _ 10 3 50

1 (2) 4 1 (2) 4 8 2 31

1 S e e fo o tn o te 1, ta b le A - 1 0 .

2 L e s s than 0. 5 p e r c e n t.

NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-16. Membership affiliation of parks and recreation employees, 1968-69

Cities

reporting

Cities

reporting

Affiliation 1

unions organized AFSCME SEIU LIUNA Building Trades

City size or parks and

a sso ci­ recreation Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

ations employees Cities of of Cities of of Cities of of C itie s of of

(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) ____ (A)_______

(B) (A) (B)

T o ta l ---------------------- 1,033 411 190 18 46 15 1 4 11 1 3 18 2 4

1, 000, 000 and o v e r ------- 4 4 4 100 100 1 25 25 3 75 75

500,000-1,000,000 --------- 19 13 8 42 62 4 21 31 3 16 23 5 26 38

250,000-500,000 ------------- 23 16 10 43 63 - - - 2 9 13 4 17 25

1 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ------------- 61 44 21 34 48 3 5 7 2 3 5 2 3 5

50,000-100,000 -------------- 171 95 45 26 47 2 1 2 - - - - - -

25,000-50,000 ----------------- 287 132 63 22 48 2 1 2 4 1 3 - - -

1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 ----------------- 468 107 39 8 36 3 1 3 " -

4 1 4

IBT Other unions FOP Other associations

Total - ------- — 31 3 8 23 2 6 1 (2) (2) 196 19 48

1, 000, 000 and o v e r -------- 2 50 50 . 3 75 75

500, 000-1, 000, 000 -------- 5 26 38 2 11 15 1 5 8 5 26 38

250,000-500, 000 -------------- 3 13 19 - - - - - - 9 39 56

100,000-250,000 -------------- 6 10 14 5 8 11 - - - 19 31 43

50,000-100,000 --------------- 5 3 5 3 2 3 - - - 51 30 32

25,000-50,000 ---------------- 5 2 4 5 2 4 - - - 57 20 43

10,000-25,000 ------------------ — 7 1 7 6 1 6

' '

52 11 49

1 S ee f ootn ote 1, t a b le A - 1 0 .

2 L e s s th an 0. 5 p e r c e n t.

NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-17. Membership affiliation of public welfare employees, 1968-69

City size

Citie s

reporting

unions

or

a s s o c i -

ations

(A)

Cities

reporting

organized

public

welfare

employees

(B)

1033 61

4 2

19 4

23 3

61 11

171 17

287 18

468 6

Affiliation 1

AFSCME SEIU Building Trades

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

Cities of of Cities of of Cities of of

(A) . .(B ) (A) (B) (A) (B)

26 3 43 1 _ . (1 2) . 2 1 (2) 2

2 50 100 1 25 50

3 16 75 - _ _ _ _

2 9 67 - _ _ _ _ _

6 10 91 _ _ _ _ _ _

5 3 29 - - _ _ - _

8 3 44 1 (2) 6

- - :

IB T Other unions Other associations

4 (2) 7 4 (2) 7 34 3 56

1 25 50 1 25 50 1 25 50

- - - 2 11 50 1 5 25

- - - - - - 1 4 33

- - - - - _ 5 8 45

2 1 12 1 1 6 11 6 65

- - - - - - 10 3 56

1 (2) 17 “ - - 5 1 83

Total --------------

1, 000, 000 and o v e r

500, 000-1, 000, 000

250, 000-500, 000 —

100, 000-250, 000 -----

50, 000-100, 000 ------

25, 000-50, 000 ---------

10, 000-25, 000 ---------

Total ■

1, 000, 000 and o v e r •

500, 000-1, 000, 000 -

250, 000-500, 000 -----

100, 000-250, 000 -----

50, 000-100, 000 --------

25, 000-50, 000 ---------

10, 000-25, 000 ---------

1 S ee fo o tn o te 1, ta b le A - 1 0 .

2 L e s s than 0. 5 p e r c e n t .

NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-18. Membership affiliation of all other public employees, 1968-69

City size

Cities

reporting

unions

or

a s s o c iations

(A)

Cities

reporting

organized

other

em ployees

(B)

Affiliation 1

AFSCME

Percent

of

(A)

Percent

of

(B)

SEIU

Percent

of

■ 1A).

Percent

of

__ (21__

LIUNA

Percent

of

,-jA)-..

Percent

of

__ (bJ__

Building Trades

Percent

of

__(A)---

Percent

of

__(B)

Total •

1, 000, 000 and o v e r ■

500, 000-1, 000, 000 -

250, 000-500, 000 -----

100, 000-250, 000 -----

50, 000-100, 000 -------

25, 000-50, 0 0 0 ---------

10, 000-25, 0 0 0 ---------

4

19

23

61

171

287

468

1, 000, 000 and o v e r ■

500, 000-1, 000, 000 -

250, 000-500, 000 -----

100, 000-250, 000 -----

50, 000-100, 000 ------

25, 000-50, 0 0 0 ---------

10, 000-25, 0 0 0 ---------

4

13

17

43

91

113

127

15 38 16

4

9

11

21

34

40

35

100

47

48

34

20

14

7

100

69

65

49

22

35

28

75

16

7

1

1

(2)

75

23

9

2

2

2

25

16

4

2

(*)1

25

23

6

2

1

4

Other unions

50

21

9

7

2

1

1

50

31

12

9

4

4

5

50

21

4

15

4

2

2

50

31

6

21

7

4

7

(2) (2)

(2)

19

75

16

17

7

1

1

(2)

75

23

24

9

2

2

1

Other associations

3

5

10

20

55

67

73

75

26

43

33

32

23

16

75

38

59

47

60

59

57

1 S ee fo o tn o te 1, table A - 10.

2 L e s s than 0. 5 p e r c e n t .

NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities reported more than 1 organization.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-19. Type of documents used to record results of negotiatiations by type of recognition, 1968-69

Document

T o t a l -------------------------------------------------------------

Associations reporting negotiations recorded—

Written agreement o n ly ----------------------------------

M e m o r a n d u m of u n d er s ta n d in g o n l y --------------

O r d in a n c e s o n l y ------------------------------------------------

P e r s o n n e l r e g u la t i o n s only ----------------------------

O th er d o c u m e n ts o n l y 1 ------------------------------------

Written agreement plus one or more

d o cu m en ts------------------------------------------------------

Written agreem ent and memorandum of

u n d e r s t a n d i n g --------------------------------------------

Written agreem ent and ordinances-----------

Written agreem ent and personnel

r e g u l a t i o n s ------------------------------------------------

Written agreem ent and oth er --------------------

Written agreem ent, memorandum of

understanding and ordinances ----------------

Written agreem ent, memorandum of

understanding and personnel

r e g u l a t i o n s -------------------------------------------------

Written agreem ent, memorandum of

understanding and other -------------------------

Written agreem ent, ordinances and

personnel regulations -----------------------------

Written agreem ent, ordinances and

other ----------------------------------------------------------

Written agreement, personnel

regulations and oth er ---------------------------------

Written agreem ent, memorandum of

understanding, ordinances, and

personnel regulations -----------------------------

Written agreement, ordinances, pers o n n e l r e g u la t i o n s and o t h e r ------------------

Written agreem ent, memorandum of

understanding, ordinances, personnel

regulations and o th e r ------------------------------

Two or more docum ents---------------------------------

Ordinances and o th e r ---------------------------------

P e r s o n n e l r e g u la t i o n s and o t h e r --------------

Memorandum of understanding, ordinances and personnel regulations----------

O rdinances, personnel regulations and

other ----------------------------------------------------------

Memorandum of understanding and

ordinances-------------------------------------------------

Memorandum of understanding and

personnel regulations -----------------------------

M emorandum of understanding and

o t h e r ----------------------------------------------------------

Ordinances and personnel regulations----

No document rep orted ------------------------------------------

No r e c o g n it io n r e p o r te d 2 ------------------------------------

Tot

Type of recognition No

aition

Formal Informal repo rted

Associations Members Associations Members Associations Members Associations Members

662 264, 366 393 171,352 224 72, 370 45 20, 644

531 213,321 38 5 170, 483 146 42, 838

160 34, 173 150 33, 198 10 975 - -

58 8, 526 28 5, 880 30 2, 646 - -

73 9, 485 42 4, 233 31 5, 252 - -

49 9, 747 38 8, 531 11 1, 216 - -

33 5, 944 19 2, 924 14 3, 020 - -

56 6 7 , 3 9 9 52 65, 683 4 1,716 _ _

8 1, 042 8 1, 042

15 3, 915 13 2, 586 2 1, 329 -

7 3, 536 7 3, 536 _ _ _

2 435 2 435 - -

1 200 1 200 - -

3 235 3 235 - -

1 701 1 701 - -

10 9, 056 8 8, 669 2 38 7

1 30 1 30 - -

1 2 9 , 000 1 29,000 -

3 606 3 606 -

1 12 1 12 -

3 18,631 3 18,631 _

102 78,047 56 50,034 46 28,013 - -

4 1,497 2 303 2 1, 194 . _

4 1,814 1 500 3 1, 314 - -

18 5, 441 7 1, 374 11 4, 067

7 11,453 4 9, 223 3 2, 230

9 1,466 8 1, 216 1 250

17 2, 929 9 2, 228 8 701

2 173 2 173 _ . _ _

41 53, 274 23 35, 017 18 1 8 ,2 5 7 - -

86 30,401 8 869 78 29,532 - -

45 20, 644 - "

45 20, 644

See footnote 2, table 20.

S ee footnote 1, table 19.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-20. Type of documents used to record the results of negotiations by city size, 1968-69

Type of document

Total

City size

1,000,000 and over 500,000- 1,000,000 250,000-500,000 100,000-250,000

A ssociations M em b er s A ssociations Members A sso cia ­

tions Members A ssociations Members A sso cia ­

tions M e m b e r s

T o ta l _______________________________________________ 393 171,352 43 62, 652 18 37, 088 12 5,424 32 15,929

Recorded results -------- _------------------ ----------------------------- 385 170,483 41 62, 141 18 37,088 12 5,424 32 15,929

Written agreement only ---------------- ---------------------------- 150 33,198 22 17,272 4 3, 158 2 1, 261 12 2, 507

M emorandum of u n d erstanding -------------------------------- 28 5,880 2 47 3 2,465 2 1, 335 1 12

O r d in a n c e s ____________________________________________ 42 4,233 _ - - 845 1 100 5 1,217

Personnel regulations _______________________________ 38 8,531 7 2, 755 2 1,978 2 62 1 230

Other d o c u m e n ts _____________________________________ 19 2,924 2 380 1 700 - - - -

Written agreement plus one or m ore documents... 52 65,683 6 39,737 5 1,662 2 1, 314 6 1,294

Two or m ore documents. _____________________________ 56 50,034 2 1,950 2 26, 280 3 1, 352 7 10,669

No document reported ___________________________________ 8 869 2 511 “ “ “ “ “

50,000-100,000 25,000--50,000 10,000-25,000 Intercity

T o ta l ________________________________________________ 87 13, 270 102 8, 591 94 4,633 5 23,765

Recorded results --------------------------------------------------------------- 86 13,130 101 8, 531 91 4,492 4 23, 748

Written agreement only.---------------------------------------------- 34 4 ,037 38 3, 552 38 1,411 - -

Memorandum of understanding ---------------------------------- 6 1, 252 6 344 8 425 - -

Ordinances ------------ -------------------------------------------------------- 6 635 15 781 14 655 - -

P e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s -------------------------------------------------- 11 2 , 4 4 4 9 840 6 222 - -

Other d o c u m e n ts __________________s.----------------------------- 5 855 5 577 6 412 - -

Written agreement plus one or m ore documents ___ 11 2, 193 13 624 7 253 2 18,606

Two or m ore documents _______________________ _____ 13 1,714 15 1 ,8 1 3 12 1, 114 2 5, 142

No document reported ------------------------------------------------------- 1 140 1 60 3 141 1 17

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table A-21. Type of documents used to record the results of negotiations by city size. 1968-69

Type of document

Total

City size

1,000,000 and over 500,000--1,000,000 250,000- 500,000 100,000-250,000

A ssociations M e m b e r s A sso ciations Members A sso c iations Members A sso ciations Members A sso ciations Members

T o ta l ...................................................................-— 224 72,370 7 10,015 6 20,870 10 11,166 20 8,482

Recorded results _____________________________ 146 42, 838 5 1,040 2 10,320 10 11, 166 13 7, 238

Written agreement only ___________________ 10 975 - - - - 1 435 - -

Memorandum of understanding ---------------- 30 2, 646 2 615 - - - - 1 159

Ordinances -------------------------------------------------- 31 5, 252 1 320 - - 1 1, 200 2 1, 301

P e r s o n n e l r e g u l a t i o n s _____________________ 11 1, 216 - - - - - - 1 125

Other documents __________________________ 14 3, 020 2 105 - - 1 675 2 535

Written agreem ent plus one or

m o r e d o c u m e n t s ---------------------------------------- 4 1,716 - - - - - - - -

Two or m ore documents -------------------------- 46 28,013 - - 2 10,320 7 8, 856 7 5, 118

No d o c u m e n ts r e p o r t e d ----------------------------------- 78 29,532 2 8,975 4 10,550 "

7 1,244

50,000- 100,000 25,000i-50, 000 10,000--25,000 Intercity

T o ta l --------------------- ---------------------------------- 42 5, 391 82 7,825 54 3, 121 3 5, 500

Recorded results ______________________________ 25 3, 597 54 5, 212 35 1,765 2 2, 500

Written agreement only ____________ ______ _ 2 183 3 177 4 180 - -

Memorandum of understanding ________— 6 785 11 715 10 372 - -

Ordinances ___________________ ______________ 4 480 16 1,470 7 481 - -

Personnel regulations ______________________ 3 651 4 297 3 143 - -

Other documents ___________________________ 1 76 4 283 3 146 1 1,200

Written agreem ents plus one or

m ore documents ___________________________ 1 200 2 216 - - 1 1, 300

Two or m ore documents --------------------------- 8 1,222 14 2, 054 8 443 - -

No documents rep o rted ------------------------------------ 17 1 , 7 9 4 28 2,613 19 1, 356 1 3, 000

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B. Municipal Public Employee Associations and Membership 

in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 1968-69

SMSA Associations Members SMSA Associations Members

Total, all SMSA’s .... 533 2 3 4 ,9 6 8

Akron, Ohio..............................

Albany—Schenectady—

4 1,184

Troy, N .Y ...........................

Allentown-Bethlehem4 639

Easton, Pa.—N.J ............. 3 4 9 7

Altoona, P a ..............................

Anaheim—Santa Ana—

1 100

Garden Grove, Calif . . . 2 0 12,373

Anderson, In d ian a................. 1 181

Atlantic City, N.J .................. 2 255

Augusta, Ga.—S .C ................. 1 150

Austin, T e x .............................. 1 29

Bakersfield, C alif....................

Beaumont—Port A rthur1 308

Orange, T e x ...................... 1 143

Binghamton, N .Y.................... 2 115

Birmingham, A la ....................

Bloomington—Normal,

2 1,129

111.......................................... 1 4 6

Boise City, Id ah o.................... 1 60

Boston, M ass........................... 9 535

Bridgeport, C onn.................... 4 237

Buffalo, N .Y ........................... 8 2,5 0 7

Canton, O hio........................... 1 181

Cedar Rapids, Io w a ............... 1 125

Chicago, 111 ..............................

Cincinnati, Ohio—Ky.—

10 4 0 4

I n d ........................................ 1 1,200

Cleveland, O h io ...................... 5 559

Dallas, T ex................................ 1 1,200

Dayton, O hio........................... 2 4 9 2

Denver, C o lo ........................... 6 1,173

Des Moines, Iow a.................... 2 471

Detroit, Mich ......................... 4 0 6 ,9 8 0

Dubuque, I o w a ......................

Duluth—Superior, Minn—

1 55

W is ........................................ 1 60

Erie, P a .....................................

Fitchburg—Leominster,

i 2 0 0

M ass..................................... 2 189

Flint, Mich .............................. 3 733

Fresno, C a lif............................

Galveston—Texas City,

1 1,312

T e x ........................................

Gary—Hammond—East

1 65

Chicago, I n d ...................... 1 32

Grand Rapids, M ich............... 3 2 9 7

Green Bay, Wis ...................... 1 7 6

Hartford, C o n n ......................

Huntington—Ashland,

7 399

W. Va—Ky.—O h io ............. 1 164

Jackson, M ic h ......................... 1 145

Jersey City, N .J...................... 2 385

Kalamazoo, M ich.................... 3 213

Kenosha, W is........................... 1 128

Knoxville, T en n...................... 1 175

Lancaster, P a ........................... 1 9 2

Lansing, M ic h ......................... 1 165

Las Vegas, N e v .......................

Lewiston—Auburn,

3 8 1 0

M ain e................................... 1 9 0

Lexington, K y ......................... 1 2 7 8

Lima, Ohio .............................. 1 70

Lorain-Elyria, O h io .............

Los Angeles-Long Beach,

1 48

C a lif.....................................

Louisville, Ky.—

60 3 5 ,2 8 4

Ind ........................................ 1 613

Madison, W is........................... 1 225

Manchester, N .H .................... 2 162

Miami, F la ................................ 5 2 ,2 0 6

Milwaukee, W is......................

Minneapolis—St. Paul,

16 2,363

M inn..................................... 2 43

Montgomery, A la.................... 1 325

Muncie, I n d .............................. 1 138

38

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SMSA Associations Members SMSA Associations Members

Muskegon-Muskegon

Heights, M ic h .................... 1 120

New Britain, C onn................. 1 55

New Haven, C o n n ..................

New London—Groton—

4 237

Norwich, C o n n ................. 2 4 0

New York, N .Y ...................... 4 8 5 3 ,1 62

Newark, N .J .............................. 10 4 ,7 3 0

Norwalk, Conn......................... 5 431

Ogden, U t a h ........................... 3 4 2 2

Oklahoma City, O kla............. 1 4 6 0

Omaha, Nebr.—I o w a ............ 1 70

Oxnard—Ventura, Calif .... 

Paterson—Clifton—

4 4 5 3

Passaic, N .J......................... 8 1,018

Philadelphia, Pa.—N .J............ 4 8 ,846

Phoenix, A r iz ......................... 2 3 7 2

Pittsburgh, P a ......................... 7 3 ,323

Portland, M aine...................... 4 735

Portland, O reg.-W ash..........

Providence—Pawtucket—

2 125

Warwick, R.I.—Mass .... 9 776

Racine, W is .............................. 1 174

Reading, P a ............ ................ 1 160

Rochester, N .Y ...................... 1 41

Sacramento, C a lif................. 3 1,151

Saginaw, M ich......................... 2 170

Salem, O reg .............................. 1 7 6 0

Salinos—Monterey, Calif . . . 7 6 7 4

St. Joseph, M o......................... 1 70

Salt Lake City, U t a h ............. 1 835

San Antonio, T e x ..................

San Bernardino—Riverside—

1 750

Ontario, C a lif.................... 9 4 ,9 3 2

San Diego, Calif ....................

San Francisco—Oakland,

19 5 ,062

C a lif..................................... 42 4 5 ,9 8 2

San Jose, C alif......................... 9 1,882

Santa Barbara, C alif............... 2 451

Seattle—Everett, W ash.......... 3 1,505

Sioux City, Iowa—Nebr .... 1 175

South Bend, I n d .................... 2 3 2 8

Springfield, 111.........................

Springfield—Chicopee1 145

Holy oke, Mass.—Conn. . . 8 8 9 0

Stamford, C onn......................

Steubenville—Weirton,

5 1,061

Ohio-W. V a ...................... 1 28

Stockton, C a lif...................... 2 2 1 0

Syracuse, N .Y .........................

Tampa—St. Petersburg,

2 160

Fla ........................................ 2 4 5 0

Toledo, Ohio—M ich............... 4 1,268

Topeka, Kans........................... 1 142

Trenton, N . J ................. .......... 3 2 ,368

Tucson, A r iz ........................... 1 2 5 0

Utica—Rome, N .Y ................. 2 32

Vallejo-Napa, C alif...............

Washington, D.C.—Md.—

5 4 9 6

V a .......................................... 4 5,711

West Palm Beach, F la............ 2 298

Wichita, Kans...........................

Wilkes-Barre—Hazelton,

1 33

P a ..........................................

Wilmington, D el—N.J.—

1 9 6

Md ........................................ 1 28

Worcester, M ass...................... 1 12

39

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix C. Employee O rganizations Questionnaire

EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS

I. In the table below please enter the appropriate figures indicating the number of employees in each function 

and the number represented (members as well as nonmembers) by unions or employee associations in dealing with the city, either formally or informally, on such subjects as wages, working conditions, promotions, 

grievances or other personnel matters.

Number of Number of

Employees Employees

Total Represented by Not Represented

Number of unions or by unions or

Function Employees associations associations

Police P ro te c tio n .............................

Fire Protection ................................

Public W orks.....................................

Public U tilities..................................

Public Health and Hospitals ....

City Operated Education

(Noninstructional Personnel)

Parks and R ecreatio n....................

Public W elfare..................................

All Other Employees.......................

Total E m p lo y ees.................

(7-11)

(22-26)

(37-41)

(52-56)

(7-11)

(22-26)

(37-41)

(52-56)

(7-11)

(22-26)

1 Developed and mailed by the International City Management Association.

(12-16)

(27-31)

(42-46)

(57-61)

(12-16)

(27-31)

(42-46)

(57-61)

(12-16)

(27-31)

(17-21)

(32-36)

(47-51)

(62-66)

(17-21)

(32-36)

(47-51)

(62-66)

(17-21)

(32-36)

40

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
) which they belong

LOCAL ASSOCIATION NOT AFFILIATED WITH 

ANY NATIONAL ORGANIZATION

(9)

nations t( 

Other

(8 )

y the organic

Fraternal 

Order of 

Police

(7 )

, please identif

International 

Association 

of Fire Fighters

(6)

: associations

International 

Brotherhood of 

Teamsters

(5)

jd by unions oi

Building

Trades

Unions(Carpenters,

Plumbers,

Etc.)

(4 )

is represente i(s) below.

Laborers

International

Union

(3 )

any employees < 

ropriate columr

Building

Service

EmployeesInternational

Union

(2 )

)u have shown; : (v) in the app

American 

Federation 

of State, 

County & 

Municipal 

Employees 

(1)

II. If in Question I yc 

by placing a checl

Function

O/-

PoliceProtection

BBFire

Protection

By -

Public

Works

4UPublic

Utilities

4iPublic 

Health & Hospitals 4^-

Education (NonInstructional

Personnel)

40-Parks & 

Recreation

4 4 -

Public Welfare

4 5 -

All Other 

Employees

41

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
III. If in Question II you have checked any of the last 3 columns (FOP, Other, Local Association not Affiliated with 

any National Organization) please supply the following information about each such association.

Name of Association ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name and Title of Chief Officer or

Representative ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mailing Address ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name of Association -----------------

Name and Title of Chief Officer or 

Representative -----------------

Mailing Address -----------------

Name of Association -----------------

Name and Title of Chief Officer or 

Representative' -----------------

Mailing Address -----------------

Name of Association -----------------

Name and Title of Chief Officer or 

Representative -----------------

Mailing Address -----------------

Name (please print) Title

42

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix D. BLS Questionnaire

BLS 2890 Budget Bureau No. 44- R1360

Approval Expires July 31, 1970

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

Washington, D.C. 2 0 2 12

Survey of Employee Associations in the Public Service

I. Id e n tifica tio n :

(Please change if shown incorrectly above. )

II. F u n c tio n s :

1. Does your organization participate in legislative activities (i. e. ,

seeking legislative support, sponsoring legislation) on bills or

proposals pertaining to public employees ? ---------------------------- ----------------- d ] Yes [ ^ ] No

2. Does your organization, as one of its primary functions, represent

public employees on matters of wages, working conditions, or

grievances, etc. , in direct dealings or meetings with supervisors

or o fficia ls? --------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- | ] Yes 1 ] No

If both 1 and 2 are answered as "No, " no other questions need

be answered. Please sign and return the form.

3. Please indicate the approximate number or proportion of members

employed in each of the following jurisdictions.

Federal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------

State----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------

County-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------

C ity ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------

School district---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Other public employment (please state)---------------------------------------------- -----------------------

All nongovernmental - r ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------

4. Of those in public service, please indicate the approximate

number or proportion covered by civil service codes or

regulations (merit system )--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------

43

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
III. S tru c tu re and M e m b e rsh ip :

1. Date your organization was founded------------------------------------------------------ --------------- Year

2. Approximate number of members in 1962 ---------------------------------------------- -------- Members

3. Number of current members------------------------------------------------------------------ Members

4. Please indicate the number or proportion of current members in the

following classifications:

Professional, technical, and c le r ic a l------------------------------------

Policemen and firem en--------------------------------------------------------

Blue collar or manual crafts and occupations---------------------------

Other (please sta te )-------------------------------------------------------------

5. Has your organization chartered local chapters or similar ___

bodies?---------------------- - ......... ----- ..........- .................- .................................... □ Yes □ No

If "Yes, " how many are now in operation?-------------------------------------------- -----------------------

(If you have a directory of affiliated organizations, please

enclose a copy. )

6. Is your organization affiliated with (i. e. , pays regular dues or per

capita tax to) any other organization, council, or federation?---- ------------ □ Yes □ No

If "Yes, " please give name and address of organization with

which affiliated.

7. Has your organization adopted a constitution, bylaws, or similar ___ ___

docum ent?-------------------- ......... - ....................................~ ~ --------- ------------- □ Yes □ No

If "Yes," please enclose a copy for our files.

8. Amount of annual dues per m ember------------------------------------------------------ $_______________

If not a standard amount, please indicate how dues are set.

9. Publication:

Name How often published

44

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
III. S tr u c tu r e and M e m b e rsh ip — C o n tin u e d

10. Are there any other organizations that may also represent your members or

similar public employee groups within your jurisdiction?--------------------------- [ j Yes | I No

If "Yes," please identify these organizations.

IV . E m p lo y e r—E m p lo y e e R e la tio n s (to be answered if item II-2 was checked "Yes):

1. Has your organization been recognized as a representative of employees?

1 I Formally (i. e. , by law, executive order, departmental order, etc. )

1 | Informally

2. Results of formal negotiations are recorded in—

Written agreements--------------------------------------------------------------

(Please enclose copy; indicate number of employees covered)

Memoranda of understanding------------------------------------------------

Ordinances--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personnel regulations------------------------------------------------------------

Other (please s ta te )-------------------------------------------------------------

3. Meetings with supervisors or officials are held—

1 | Regularly, at specified intervals

□ Irregularly, at the request o f either party

4. Issues that have been or may be discussed with supervisors or officials.

f 1 Pay matters j | Discharges

□ Job classifications 1 ] Fringe benefits

1 1 Working conditions 1 1 Grievance procedures

□ Promotions or promotion policy □ Other (please state)

5. In grievance cases, may your organization—

Represent the aggrieved em ployee?--------------------------------------------------- 1 1 Yes □ No

Act as an observer on ly?--------------------------------- - .......................................... □ Yes □ No

Be notified officially of the outcome of the case __

(no direct participation)?------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 1 Yes [ 1 No

45

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
V . D ire c to ry of E m p lo y e e A s s o c ia t io n s :

1. Do you think a national directory of employee associations

in the public service would be useful?-------------- -- - - - ------- ---------------------- □ Yes □ No

2. Would your organization object to a listing in such a ___

directory?--------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- □ Yes □ No

3. If you do not object, please furnish the names of the

following officers and their correct titles:

President _____________________________________________________________________________

Secretary-treasurer___________________________________________________________________

(or financial officer)

Executive secretary__________________________________________________________________

(or chief full-time official)

V I. C o m m e n ts:

Please feel free to comment on particular items in this questionnaire or on the

survey generally.

(Person reporting) (Title) (Date)

46

rU. S. GOVERNM ENT PRINTING O FFIC E : 1971 O - 484 -7 8 2 (9)

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
B U R E A U O F LA B O R S T A T IS T IC S

R E G IO N A L O FFIC E S

Region I

1603-A Federal Building 

Government Center 

Boston, Mass. 02203 

Phone: 223-6762 (Area Code 617

R e g io n II

341 Ninth Ave., Rm. 1025

New York, N.Y. 10001

Phone: 971-5405 (Area Code 212)

Region III

406 Penn Square Building 

1317 Filbert St.

Philadelphia, Pa. 19107

Phone: 597-7796 (Area Code 215)

Region IV 

Suite 540

1371 Peachtree St. NE.

Atlanta, Ga. 30309

Phone: 526-5418 (Area Code 404)

Region V

219 South Dearborn St.

Chicago, III. 60604

Phone: 353-7230 (Area Code 312)

Region VI

1100 Commerce St., Rm. 6B7

Dallas, Tex. 75202

Phone: 749-3516 (Area Code 214)

Regions V II and V III

Federal Office Building 

911 Walnut St., 10th Floor 

Kansas City, Mo. 64106 

Phone: 374-2481 (Area Code 816)

Regions IX and X

450 Golden Gate Ave.

Box 36017

San Francisco, Calif. 94102 

Phone: 556^678 (Area Code 415)

Regions V II and V III will be serviced by Kansas City. 

Regions IX and X will be serviced by San Francisco.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR THIRD CLASS MAIL

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

WASHINGTON, D.C 20212

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

P E N A L T Y F O R P R I V A T E U S E , $ 3 0 0

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis