Public Employee ViewsAuthor(s): Joseph AdlerSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 38, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1978), pp. 294-295Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975688 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 19:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:07:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

294

COMMUNICATION

Items in the Communications feature are gen- erally limited to expressions of opinion and exchanges of ideas concerning material published in the Review. The publication of items and the content are not to be construed as reflecting either an editorial or a Society position.

Water Management

To the Editor Possibly the most significant sentence in the excellent papers

comprising the Symposium on Water Resources Management (September/October 1977 PAR) is from Marvin P. Berry's "Water Management in Crisis:"

"Whatever the name given to the situation, the stubborn fact remains that in an increasing number of areas, demand tends to exceed renewable supplies of water and the situation will probably get worse." (p. 472)

If this prediction is valid, then surely all levels of government should seek ways of reducing the public's use of water. One im- portant way would be to develop a satisfactory substitute for the water-flushed sewage system. The flush toilet uses from 30% to 40% of all water piped into the home, and its effluent lowers the quality of receiving waters despite tens of billions spent on ad- vanced treatment plants.

Fortunately a number of sewerless toilets are now coming on the market. I EPA could make a major contribution by testing the new waterless sanitation systems and informing all levels of govern- ment about the outcome. EPA is monitoring tests of several new toilet systems, but to date these have been for rural and semi-rural areas. The crucial area is the inner city; can new waterless technology replace flush toilets in such places as New York and Washington? If so, the problems of diminishing water supplies detailed in a recent report of the Army's Corps of Engineers would be greatly reduced.2

The developing nations offer an opportunity for modern tech- nology to learn from the sanitation errors of the industrialized na- tions by installing waterless or water-saving systems. In July 1977 a conference on this subject took place in Oxford, England, spon- sored by OXFAM and the Ross Institute of Tropical Hygiene.3 In February 1978 a similar conference was scheduled in Bangkok by the Asian Institute of Technology. If sanitation problems in cen- tral cities can be solved by waterless systems in the developing na- tions, the lessons learned may eventually be applied in the indus- trialized nations.

Harold H. Leich Environment Forum

Notes 1. Leich, H.H., "The Sewerless Society," Bulletin of the

Atomic Scientists, Vol. 31 (November 1975), pp. 38-44. 2. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, North At-

lantic Division, Northeastern United States Water Supply (NEWS) Report-Summary, November 11, 1977, pp. 1-1 to 1-8.

3. Proceedings to be published in 1978. For a one-page report on the conference, see Leich, H.H., "Sanitation for the De- veloping Nations," Compost Science, Vol. 18 (September/ October 1977), p. 21.

Public Employee Views

To The Editor: The recent mini-symposium, "The Municipal Civil Service Un-

der Pressure" (PAR, September/October 1977), properly focused attention on the importance of state and local government person- nel systems. Effective and competent personnel systems are crucial to the successful administration of policies formulated by any level of government. We were surprised, therefore, that the symposium did not afford the representatives of the municipal and state government employees an opportunity to discuss these concerns. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Em- ployees represents well over 1,00O,000 state and local government employees. The well-being of such personnel systems is important to us, both as a bargaining agent and as an institution concerned with the quantity and quality of public services being delivered to citizens. For a number of years we have made specific proposals aimed at upgrading local and state government personnel systems into truly first-rate systems. Had we been given the opportunity, we would have been quite willing to let the readers of PAR judge the soundness of some of these proposals. I trust that future PAR discussions or symposia on this topic will encompass the views of public employees and their representatives.

Also, Michael Preston's article, "Minority Employment in the Public Service, " was somewhat puzzling. We wholeheartedly agree with the author that existing racism in the labor movement must be eliminated, just as racism in other American institutions including higher education must be eliminated. The article, unfor- tunately, leaves the impression that AFSCME and other public sector unions are doing little to advance the cause of minorities.

The article states that while industrial or "pluralist" type unions such as AFSCME are more egalitarian with respect to blacks as members," . . . most are concentrated in the agencies serving largely black clientele, such as welfare, manpower, neighborhood health centers and community relations offices. Stated differently, while these unions are less discriminatory, the jobs are lower in status and income. I

Perhaps the author is confused about the respective roles of labor and management. It is an elementary fact of labor relations that unions have very little to do with the recruitment, hire and placement of employees. These functions are performed by man- agement. Thus, if the author discovers a segregated worksite today it is due to the actions of management. Through collective bargain- ing and other appropriate means we do attempt to upgrade the status and income of all public employees, including the workers Mr. Preston refers to. Our growth in the last ten years indicates

MAY/JUNE 1978

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:07:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COMMUNICATIONS 295

that AFSCME is responding to the needs of all workers. We are proud of the fact that minority workers select AFSCME as their bargaining agent and are certain that the author does not wish AFSCME to stop organizing black and other minority workers merely because they work at jobs which are lower in status and income.

We protest against the unjust generalization which the author makes against AFSCME based on very limited and outdated ex- amples.

" . . . it is the method and inequitable policies employed by most unions in power . . . that keeps unionization and collective bargaining from being as great a benefit to minor- ities as it is to white public employees . . . For example, in Hartford, Connecticut, the AFSCME local refused to rep- resent three black policemen with legal counsel against the city while providing legal aid to three white policemen in a federal suit charging Hartford police with discrimination against minorities."

No mention is made that this incident occurred in 1970. On the basis of one example (over seven years old), the author implies that the over 2,700 locals of AFSCME continue to discriminate against minority members.

Curiously, when the positive achievements of unions are dis- cussed, no mention is made that these were AFSCME locals. Mem- phis is cited as an example where black members with "community and national union support"3 were able to gain control of the union and force management to recognize it as a legitimate bar- gaining agent. As in the previously cited Hartford case, this is only partially accurate. Black members of Local 1733 in Memphis control their local just as AFSCME members in other locals con- trol their union. In addition short shrift is given by the article to the resources both in terms of money and manpower that the Inter- national Union provided to Local 1733. In the Cleveland example the author does not mention that it was the round-the-clock nego- tiations conducted by Jerry Wurf, president of AFSCME, that helped settle that strike.

On a broader scale the article ignored the support given by AFSCME to the struggle for equal rights and economic justice. We are proud of the fact our union has consistently been on the fore- front in the struggle to achieve legal and economic equality. We have lobbied in Congress and in state legislatures across the coun- try to help pass legislation which would aid the poor and minor- ities. Despite the fact that our union was an early supporter of President Carter we have not hesitated to criticize publicly his lack of a coherent urban policy. It should also be mentioned that AFSCME has filed a friend of the court brief in the Bakke case supporting the establishment of affirmative action plans as one way to overcome past discriminatory practices.

It is not my intent to exonerate AFSCME nor is this the appro- priate forum for such a discussion. The point is that the article fell far short of being a comprehensive analysis of the impact of collective bargaining on minority employment. Had Professor Preston contacted this union we would have been happy to provide the necessary information. It is disturbing that neither Professor Preston nor Professor Rich contacted AFSCME before publishing the symposium. It shows either a lack of understanding of the way unions operate or a deliberate antiunion bias.

Joseph Adler Department of Research and Collective

Bargaining Services, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

Notes 1. Michael B. Preston, "Minority Employment and Collective

Bargaining in the Public Sector." Public Administration Re- view, September/October 1977, p. 513.

2. Ibid., p. 513. 3. Ibid., p.514.

Disquieting Comments

To The Editor: I found Mr. Joseph Adler's comments disquieting for several

reasons. First, he implies that any criticism of AFSCME comes either from a misunderstanding of how unions operate or is a de- liberate antiunion bias. On the contrary, as I argue in the article, unions have been and hopefully will remain, an upwardly mobile route for minorities. However, this does not and should not ob- scure the fact that collective bargaining, without adequate minority representation, can be harmful to minority employees. Certainly, Mr. Adler is not suggesting that AFSCME is above criticism in this respect. Second, Mr. Adler states that I have confused the roles of labor and management-that unions have little to do with recruit- ment, hire and placement of employees. Yet in the article, I make two general but important points about minority employment and the collective bargaining process: "First, the initial discrimination in employment has been by elected and appointed officials; the unions only support the formal-legal recruitment and promotion policies which result in discrimination, and bitterly resist any changes. Second, the successful challenge by public employee unions to the civil service system's post-recruitment policies involving seniority in assignments, promotion, pay increases, and layoffs 'could' be harmful to minority employees. This is so because job protection inevitably works against the most recently hired and those waiting to be hired." (p. 512)

On another issue, Mr. Adler protests against my use of what he calls an "outdated example," namely the Hartford case. It is interesting to note that he objected not to its validity but to its date. Is he also implying that this or similar cases no longer occur today? If so, I would be the first to applaud the efforts of the 2,700 AFSCME locals. Mr. Adler should also be astute enough to know that it is impossible to do a comprehensive analysis of the impact of collective bargaining on minorities in a mini-symposium.

Finally, on a more positive note, Mr. Adler's letter does prove that people read PAR with more than just a passive interest. He also states what I already know-that unionization can be and has been helpful to minorities in their search for employment oppor- tunities. It is precisely for this reason that I raised the issue. Indeed, I suspect that even Mr. Adler would agree that a viable democracy is only possible where a healthy skepticism exists con- cerning the operations of its organizations and institutions.

Michael B. Preston University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Council Manager Form of Government

To The Editor: In his article "The City Manager: Professional Helping Hand or

Political Hired Hand?" in the November/December, 1977, issue of Public Administration Review while purporting to deal with the "myths" surrounding the city manager profession, Richard Still- man lends credence to the myth that the council-manager form of government is one most fitted to small towns or suburbia. His support for the contention is derived from somewhat incomplete research and two "classic" (25 year old) articles in PAR.

There are as of the 1973 population estimates, 158 cities in the United States with populations in excess of 100,000. Seventy of them use the council-manager form.

MAY/JUNE 1978

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:07:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions