THE EFFECTS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATION ON POLICE SUPERVISOR IDENTIFICATION WITH POLICE MANAGEMENT Thesis for the Degree of M. L. I. R. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY KENT FREDERICK MURRMANN 1976 .-v~e 1U? 7O 74%;)!!! g . ’ b FA I ‘ .4.- ‘1'- ' K . . a. . l . - g j I “.“ ’_ , ‘ 7: ‘ L O ‘ -”~,_O " I m ‘6‘” J- U ' 3' bus’ T: I fif . , .2. .‘ :'~ -—~ [a] ’ ‘:-1 '0 . »- . A 'v \ ' v “,w v II' ‘ ‘ -‘ < - . I. .- ‘ L . . ’ .| . ‘I' . . . ‘ _. I . 1 “-1 ' ‘~-~ ‘ ' ' . . L35-.‘ La . $— JJ-N) b .JK/A—IJ‘LJU .L_L V'.~ -VrLLled4’JL_L;'J.l‘1 -1 nlar;(L1‘.-\J‘--._L}t i.LLl“ .. .‘ ‘ " "‘“1“‘ WV” -1 :' “" " "1‘ . >- ‘. -v’ ‘ I ‘- 1| ' K..\ IL‘L‘V-- ~JL‘. l‘gvlardbxk ...L.a._;».‘-_L .J-\JJ‘1-;—.I.LLI I. v I .|. ~ . .’ ‘- , , .1 ~ -I-- _L.1. fpvau... 1'..I‘L..:11J;_ii'.-e; ;xt;:1¢ . LTCH(;£J.C I r_d1?rihah1fl or nut gu.1;u gecuuh HuytLv recejsma LULJLKZLLVW“ paf?fi1 GLLE I? Lr&5EILU1LLOIIINaVE HEEMI COM- ""\ ‘ r: A . V’ " _ 1'_ ‘ -r :_ ' J . r“ fl "‘ I' ' T.“ V ’ ‘ ' "'\’\ .“V \ ’~ I .~ "‘ . \ : cexrx..xk..u CA; LL)M:ICLQL t. («2mg 0; rfiplcbtlghibIUL on . u . u .. .\ .. —. -.. -.»._", x,»j' ., x :‘f‘, .._,,. .—_.-$— b. ‘ ,..~lv'-~. ‘- b'Ji/EL VLbUL L‘w‘if; L2; ; 4.Ln1u+br. \""’_L 1.111. .11.:1..(1g";’111t‘31 b. UIJEKJMEIZ LL) 0) F. "‘ 1 u f. (\ A‘- -‘ Fl ":* 1 ~\ - " , 3-. —.-~ I :1 31‘ " . F‘x'. ' "3“ ~. ‘ 1—, I I - A r ’- 'v1 I \‘ ‘v. " ' fl 1' ’ bHPEIVIQDf CQ¢LtCuLVL gdLg.LHng [ELLESbhEdLiUH dDCLLU TMdL superv150r iGEMCLKlCdLLOu W1ih manacemeut Will be reuuceu as -, . '1 _.-., . .' _,‘,. -. .‘ .1 .. +2 A ,t, ‘ 1_ 1‘ d 1... .1— — , . v, .'. , f .' , .. a LESQLC U. chlbotHLaCLUh. VLLCQLQ Sujbbh ‘;UJLULL buyer— .1 ,, -, ..‘“-4 _..'. ‘.., r‘ .._.‘. H1 ._‘,.’_ * “ visor rbpfethLaLIUL .ECQJbL U; CHAS aLLfcflLmbLUC. 1€i”tEC 'ilU L/LL‘II Lt: TEE/1T6, SGT; LEO «L: b— . r- m "I I ‘ ,.J (I? f4 C h’ C. C“ . I S d (I) '"5 < L- 1'; C h! (1‘. 0‘ issues are r' 1n tut game uarga1n1u3 unit Wltfi rang awn file personne; axe, 1; representeu in a Sfiyfitatb ULLL, by tne same ieJOF organ;- zation inat represfnts faLA add ILlG persoupel. prodlLlOn to sunh (Glut regreonntatian lS bappurted WlLH the aSSELthL L‘J . I- r“ fi-«' fi. ,4 \ L4 . O .. EL 0 '— ~ I p-nml A L1 5‘ >( 4.1!“ 1. °__ .:= “r .. 1 p, 3,,‘..-,, ,1 ° a. 3 Chap it WLLl Ldube d LLUULULUH g“ pJLCLVlbOI Wliiiruinagcflkrjt. to euqurloallflf 0) [L r | S: U: 11H: puzlxgue (>7 Lui thtSLléaCe rue ide:dflg'icablent‘n. . ‘ . "I " 2' ' n ," ‘ w , . - I '1’.) l I 1 v.1. “K VJ .L U11 1 (,1 1 '- j 1 4 l _.. Ki! JJES I. U 1; . ' r. ‘ 3‘ _ 1 . ‘ j‘ — ., .5 r r: C 1. DE) LA :2 L1 id's-ii, 1’21 WE. -L"/ o 4.. 11: L3 LII v” . .. . ,. .. . ..‘ . . r. J 1“ 4' I" . ,1 .. ..' 1 large ham cf: 0. .ooJ ..usc is r... I V "1‘ n \‘ ‘ h — ‘w ‘ ‘1 ‘.--. . y' 1 t' " lIle éEDL/LI) (:1._‘I_E'O COIL/111.; ET-I/IK..L.Z' E . - n ' _,_-‘ ' O —\ r > Q 1 SEhLEU dolnelj A-1fl Lgun era T SE {1"Lle(‘. 516,?al’ia’iJ(-:1_1f. ., L. .L ULlllZlflU LE6 summa‘ -CI attlque scale scale meaSures 1d6mtijj PT .’ 4‘ ‘rfl‘ 1' T '1‘“ J :2 "h ‘ abreement Wind Lne anelewJ selected colleofilv pare' graphical QMESLlCL Cudt serve “ r 1 u ‘ ‘l . ,- ‘ " '4 '* 1 '. CdIHdfi O, CloiltzbaLut» regresenta were developeo. tereo (n1 a volerieugz easis that was PrOg-kl'dlh . to (JOH%XL€L&J Lne :iueeyblonrmiire. :gues ’LlOTlllairt:S 23-121.1lnls LCL'E (l eeoause of Iallqres LO resporo items mJilearidte rearess " 4,..4.‘ 6-1 fLucLL;.DIl (T) the iecL ot'xwgm‘ CC se IJdriaé‘iL [Ilfi‘ff I 12 a :eo railrgs was ckaveloImIE aro .0atlon w, J to classify responder to a sample aumauuuleo 1o part1C1pate in a, lwo huuored ulnety—Oue of toe VV L” 1' 6 'T‘" :'\’,‘ ‘ L) Lu. vI/Ib reserleh 4>e1111J itLAL'IWifidfifj ry'sor representation Om eu1 LO determlme l: there is Letmeen SULEFVLSQTS regreseuteo SOT:HEL ago. SIXJLVL‘IVVJSOI'S PEPI‘E‘ ‘. \ \ “ 1.1;”;- b (2L1 police supervisors gar iecsuse unis group comralns presenteo anu enose unrepresented. .v .L _1 z ‘1 1 ' 1 1’ -1: L L: _L d -1 \ ~epre- re re- V l, procedure, an yret cred. lhe aititqoe i ”11nanagen&mrt in LC of 7 1 C0 . _, - .. )I.v LI -L 111 management Losition on Also, several bio- Lb _LII '1' N l h ‘J L} -mc several control Varlasles .Seleunuglre wwr‘ aduq111s- (a .L ‘C oi police superviso s supervisor training enrollees a ed 3‘ I a / ‘ 1 fl h / .r , gre beanIQy-tnree oj“MH: Lyl excluded lrom tne aralysls to (NM; or H£J%?(}u€SLlO;MQ1LTe ‘I \‘ ‘ I ‘ ' 1 ' (‘1‘ ‘t C 'r‘ c 1 "j "I v r" \ ’V "1 low aHdLjolb de Ub6o CO abotbb CH1 ioew;LifficxaLl0111vitf1 gear Ireoericx murrmann Lue attituce scale demorsprateo saeislactory reliaoility as evioeuseo by a .rowm-Spearman reliaQTlity coefficient of .7 j. hvioeuse o3 cue scale video sy tne {losing 0: a significant and suustamtiel posiLive relati rsnip -erween attiiuce score and rank. ationship hetween rank .~ 0 I ' ‘ '. «., 1". 11(3ng Ul a 51.5.«11111ca1fl I“: "I }._J and representarion status resulted in a oecision to limit tme main analysis to tne relatively large sample of ser- 7" geants kn = 1.5), waile c0uduoting a se arate analysis on ‘ ‘~ 1 r“~ “V 1‘ r" "" ‘u-1 g V! I \ =v ‘ ~ W “ j fI “ ’7 x a ‘, ‘ {q I . —-— F" _ ‘ [711.” ~. - I “ 'I "\ ens bhalltl oamgle OJ ledoehduto In - c5). lhE nam-ers .7 J: is were too iew Lu T a other rare I._J 0 ol respouueuis availa;le F] I H E‘. m .1; PC; 0 .3 ['2 (T) U) 1.6. full L; an 5115:.le S l S O T (.116? ‘11-. ~~' ~ 5 77“ .1 'V ’ .‘ ’ “ -‘1"‘- ". I'.’ ‘u '4 ‘ - 'L 1 .‘ " \ "K V': v ‘ - ‘ - ' CLILG a11.531-..‘,1:.lo alILUilgg “ErgkaleS IEbul C60. in {is bv-;f.l€IlC6 Oi w a relailo snip lctween represemiaLiom sLaLas ano ioenci- A icaeiou Wlih uauagemcmt. Sergeants receiVirg represen- tation eio not score oil eremily on ioentilication wien ' » managemcuL :rom those not rece;Ving representation, and LILUDEE Ibt.t’-’.. 44.11;}, JUllib .LQPILLQE‘ILbauluil (-1.th ILUL SCUIC‘ U_L"" L1 lerentiy lrom tnose TECelVlné separate represenLaLiom. 4 I I J I related to leer: Ticaeion With management. those lieu- . O 0 ' " . ‘ . . —. ‘ ‘ 0 '- 7‘ ~ ‘ ‘~ ~ . i ‘1 - ‘1' - H- ‘ 1 ' . ..r. ' H " ' 1 ‘I T ' ‘ T ’1 ‘ I" ‘ 7 < ' '— I V LETLd-lOS It.f..'k:_1_ Jill; Liflupcll v61. ole/I1 LDLCLEb Elé'J-...--LCE.i_Il_LJ_:}' __‘ C H i - I ' v ‘ ' ' ' I ~ ., 1' ., .\ .-‘ -~‘ _ ', » ; ~ 1- - ’ N 1,‘ .—~ '* .-- - ,. -~ ~‘_~ \ ‘ . . '1‘, O‘NLI.‘ UI- lCILliL/ll. . LIJUJLU'L Ni b1; 1.JI.._1_811.1.17-;- U L ' ,1 . .. ex, .r41»J‘...' U C .- if..eix1 relax... ,a . .‘(x A. , N . ,‘ -_ . E “I .- - - » ,. _ . , \. k , L a e - ‘ ________ KJAA_-I_ U .4 .. - - ._ v L F4 J, < ' w w . . . v v $13 A .r .L J -A ‘. A v . .L. Li', \1 a J _ \ - ‘- L_,' F: 1 , I L ‘. A 1 h e L 1.... a H. L . -1! s - U efieot on tne iGEMCiflC"LiOM of police sergeants with ,,._\ .- r. ._.-- -..' 4.1!, U... ,.“.." .-..- _-1__'(1 “Q [I1afli’1gjlbI!;CgiL/, .jL'. L; “Ligdl U116]. (11 Rial"! I EEJHJ.—t a. E) LIL/(o Cal”; Didi I b" UJCLiUh in id nti ication with management among police L—J (I: S- d (T LL 9 U? 0 inese linoirgs are regardeo as tentative tecause tne bamplE was not CUlitCth witn tae use of random procedures, and tne punter of lieutenants incluoeo in the analvsis was small. in oroer to Verijy tnese linuings it is recommended tnat en: saucy ce retilcaced in a large, ranoonly oetermin d sample 01 tolice :Efitamts, lieutenants, and captains. ine general atelieacilitr of the iinuinas should Le verilled enrouan replication in a sample containing supervisors from otner pLolic sector OCCupations. u -, ‘ v- , - ‘. ..‘ w .v. ‘ ’ 1 d" '. - '_. “«"‘f._ "f.. 1‘! I {.1 1.“; u. -HVw.) Lv ‘vL‘LL'L‘x/iifp “AALL7A41VLL\U lrLA‘IuJVHA..L:LJ.lUu _.D I DA iorrux ooLLAvibLn rLLniJUroniiUh ‘ ' "I H": ‘ T .a ‘4 ,r. : 5’" . ’."'1 [IL‘IL A LAMJLJJ— i'AAA|AL£J—-lha_..\l rxnrc 'reueruflhiiwurrflaflv . r‘n'M" 'W’ -~ It .LJLLJDrLJ Sawmibted lo mLohiyam phage University in partial AULLLLLMEMt of Lne requirements fi‘oxb tLLe Lifigg£%5&r c); lumoifiqx e: aJiibfi :L-U ijdreo44i4AL.ruabailinxo Sonoor cu'imaeor and linuxswrral fflfljithfiS io Suzanne and Sarah for their transcendent collaboration Ho 'r—lo Er. Dr. D1“. Jack Stieber, who for his assistance of this study. Einar hardin For his assistance this study. Benjamin Nolkinson For his assistance project ACKNCWLEDGMENTS served as Chairman in the planning and development in the technical aspects of and encouragement in this iii r' ' T“— xv: Ivrrzrg l‘hnun CI bCl-.ilglxiv IIV TROLLICIIICIN A \U (HIE I‘I‘IC’QLLUJ o o o I o o 0 o o o o .-P' fr-lLr “I“: ‘. - “qw— “It; IIIL'IJL‘LOCJ I o o o u o o o o o o a o o o o o o o 0 Definition of hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . Definition and measurement of the Lependent V ariahle “Identification with management”. The iretest Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . The fretest and fretest Results . . . . . . . Ihe iopulation and the Sample . . . . . . . . Administration of the Questionnaire . . . . . m .LDULES ierformance of the Attitude Scale . . . . . . The Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AnalySlS OI Ital/15:. o o o o 0 Analysis of Control Variables Other Than Rank Analysis of the Relationship between Attitude Score and Collective Bargaining Category . CCrI‘QCLUSIOICS AND RECOminEI‘II/A’IIOI‘IS. . . . . . . . . . EIBLIOIIRAEII‘iEr O 0 O 0 O I O O O O O O I O O I O O I AErEIIJEJICEd O I O 0 O O O 0 O I O I O O O O I O O I Appendix A. b. C. ssues Used for Construction of Attitude tatementSo o o o o o a o o o o n I o I o I (‘1 \ U Pretest Questionnaire and bretest Results FiIIal questhiil’lalI‘e . o o o a o o o o o I ,/ o l L: ,.. F. . 16 . 1+0 . LILI' Table l. a. j. 4. Analysis of Scale Items . . . . . . Chi Square maLIIX Attituoe v. namK 1 I Correlations retmeen flank and Attitude Score for All thIIKS a o o o o 0 0 Regression Analysis of the Effects of Rank on Attitude Score for All Ranks Correlations between Category and Control Variables Other Than Rank for Sergeants Description Statistics of Control Variables Other Than Rank for Sergeants . . Distribution of Attitude Score Among Sergeants . . . . . . . . . . . . Regression Analysis of the Effects of Category on Attitude Score for Sergeants Regression Analysis of the Effects of Category on Attitude Score for Lieutenants INTRODUCTION AND THE PROBLEM In discussions of legislative policy, the issue of whether or not supervisors should receive the protection of law in the exercise of collective bargaining rights has involved a conflict between the employer's interest in re- taining supervisors within the sphere of identification and personal alignment with the interests of management and the supervisor's interest in participating in the determi- nation of his working conditions.1 Prior to its appearance in the public sector, the issue of supervisor collective bargaining representation was resolved in the private sector under the administration of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Initially, the United States Supreme Court upheld a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision providing NLRA protection to super- visor collective bargaining rights.2 1The term "supervisor" is defined in the text of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, as "any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment." Substantially similar definitions appear in several state labor relations laws and in decisions of state labor relations boards. 2Packard Motor Car v. NLRB (1947), l9LRRM2399. This decision was based on the conclusion that supervisors were a class of employees, and as such should have the same protection of law to collectively influence their employ- ment conditions as other employees.3 This decision also determined that supervisors should be represented only in separate units on the basis of the reasoning that their inclusion in bargaining units with rank and file employees would subject the supervisor to influence from rank and file interests that would reduce the supervisor's commitment to manage the work of rank and file subordinates in accord with the interests of managementf’L The issue was ultimately re- solved in the private sector by a provision of the Labor Ianagement Relations Act (19h?) that, by definition, spe- cifically excluded supervisors from the protection of the NLRA.5 This exclusion was based on the congressional rea- soning that the supervisor possessed managerial discretion in the use of the employer's resources, and therefore should be aligned with the employer rather than being allowed to enter the sphere of collective security and influence in- herent in bargaining unit membership.6 3Ibid., 19 LRRM 2400. “Packard Motor Car Company and Foremans Association of America (19u5), lELRRMQB. 5Section 2(3) of the Labor Management Relations Act states: "The term 'employee' . . . shall not include . . . any indi- vidulal employed as a supervisor . . ." 6H. R. Rep. No. 2&5, 80th Cong., lst session (1947), Legis lative History of the LMRA, 1947, Washington, D.C., G.P.O., 1948, 1‘30“! 307. in the puclic sector no legislation has been enacted on a national scale jor the purpose of governing labor rela- tions. nowever, numerous public sector labor relations laws ( l U) (—J p C ”0 FJ ('T“ <. l l I..-) O m SJ 3 $13 rt H C ,3 O nave seen enaCteo on th s (’1' o 3 U C." 93 C’T‘ ; d- m (f H m ’ C5 0 PS (4- m c *4 5 (J. 3 m state puolic seetor la or rel" Reference Reports of the Government Employees Yelations Report inoicatee there is denial in 5 states and protection of super- visor bargaining rignts in 2? states. The statutes of / other states either are unclear or do not mane specific ref- erence to supervisor rights. states with statutory provi- U) H c C .3 a; tuurt protecL;enquarvisor baigyiriine rigirhs in all or‘ some public sector occupations are: laoahui ndlflltsoiki Utal1 lasts nevaoa dashington >3 Caliiornia new Lampsnire flyoming oeorgia Lew Jersey Connecticut haweii Aortn Lakota Indiana ideuu) ehleuxnna iiansas Kentucky :ennsylvaria Rhode Island mains Soutn Lanota Vermont massachusetts Texas disconsin States with statutory p:ovisio«s that deny bargaining rights Iowa Oregon “outana Soutn Carolina Sorta Carolina States witu statutes that are unclear about or oo not :5 3D , r’ I (D reierence to supervisory riehts are: UeLa\NaI‘e x“-e{:‘1‘8_s.tia :lorioa new Zorn marylanu nicnigan r; , ~ ,. " ' _: V’ ._ 'I A “ x. V‘ ’ _ 7 ~ _ . ,, , , 771 '7 .-' sureau Ol hatiOnal AJlairb, oo"ernment mplovee melations V e V V l ‘71 r x (D r”: V O *‘S d. :[4 (D t._L. L_; ' J (T; "V‘ O 0! r H t“ J Both those favoring and those opposing legislative protection of supervisor bargaining rights view the public sector supervisor as possessing less authority and a greater community of interest with rank and file employees than does his private sector counterpart. It is contended that civil service regulations in many jurisdictions have acted to reduce the authority of the public sector supervisor by reducing his discretion over the determination of working conditions and disciplinary actions. Also it is said such civil service regulations have acted to increase the super~ visor’s community of interest with rank and file employees by applying the same fringe benefits, salary schedule and ,- administrative procedures to each group.: Arother public sector phenomenon that is cited as a factor lhat :outrioutes to a greater community of in between supervisors and rank and file employees is the practice of conferring supervisory titles on personnel, such as lead persons, that may possess only minimal supervisory authority.9 To the extent this practice exists it results in the creation of two classes of personnel with supervisory titles, i.e., those with and those without significant managerial responsibility and authority. It may be expected that those possessing a supervisory title but lac- king significant authority will possess a greater community F; . . . . “Edwards, H. T., "The Impact of Private Sector FrinCiples in the Public Sector", Union Power and Policy, David B. Lipsky, Ed.. 1975. P. 57. 9Spero, 5., and Capozzola, J.M., The Urban Community and Its Unionized Bureaucracies, l)73, P. 145. of interest with rank and file employees than those who do possess such authority. Another phenomenon that may increase the community of interest between supervisor and rank and file employees is the practice in some public sector occupations, such as police work and firefighting, of recruiting supervisors from among rank and file employees and filling nearly all super- visory positions throughout the hierarchy by promotion from 10 As a result it is contended that such supervisors within. share many occupational experiences and interests with rank and file employees and possess a corresponding community of . . . : . . . 11 interest ano identification With them. Those opposing legislative protection of supervisory bargaining rights reiterate the private sector arguments outlined above and contend that the public sector supervisor's weakened authority and strengthened community of interest with rank and file employees may be remedied by requiring the supervisor to depend on the employer for economic O 12 T 0 O I O I security. it is argued that isolation from the bargaining unit and the resulting economic dependence on the employer would have the effect of reinforcing the supervisor's 13 community of interest and identification with the employer. 10Kienast, P.K., Doctoral Dissertation, 1972, P. 208. llIbid., P. 209. 12”Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, Labor Management Policies for State and Local Governments, l9C9, P. 155-156. 13Spero, S., and Capozzola, J.M., Op. Cit., 1973, P. luB. Those favoring legislative protection of supervisor's bargaining rights contend that the fact of the public sector supervisor's weakened authority and strengthened community of interest with rank and file employees should qualify him for categorization as a special class of employee, entitled to receive the same protection of law as other classes of employees. , As noted above the legislative treatment of supervisor representation rights varies among state jurisdictions. An examination of the rationale pertaining to supervisor identification in certain states indicates differing treatment accorded supervisors. The state jurisdictions to be discussed, Michigan, New York, and Wisconsin, are chosen because they are among the states possessing the most comprehensive legislation, and they present a comparison of alternative treatments.15 The Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) administers two bodies of law, one having jurisdiction over state employees and the other over municipal employees. Under both the WERC has identified supervisors with a definition substantially similar to that provided in the LMRA and has excluded all such 16 supervisors from legislative protection. 14 1 Bers, M.K., The Status of Managerial, SupervisoryJ and Con- fidential Employees in Government Relations, 1970, P. 169. 15Bureau of National Affairs, Op. Cit., 51:3311, 5134111, 51:5811 16Ibid., 51:5811 A significant factor considered by the WERC in excluding supervisors from legislative protection was the expec- tation that the loyalty of managerial and supervisory employees would be weakened through the exercise of 17 collective bargaining rights. Though the terms loyalty and identification are not synonymous, they have a sub- stantially similar connotation in the context of the Wisconsin board's rationale. Thus, in Wisconsin super- visory bargaining rights are denied so that supervisor loyalty and/or identification with management be main- tained. In administration of the New York Public Em- ployment Relations Act (PERA) the New York Public Em- ployment Relations Board (PERB) has ruled that super- visors should be allowed to exercise collective bargaining rights either in separate supervisor bargaining units with rank and file employees.18 The PERA contains no express provision for the treatment of supervisors, and in providing coverage to supervisors the PERB referred to the Taylor Committee Report which reasoned that the treatment of superviscis should not be resolved hastily 7‘1 “Bars, Op. Cit., 3r. bQ-VU. 18 n n .. i . . Crowley, J.R., The Resolution 0: Representation Status Disputes Under the Taylor Law", Pordham Law Review, may 1969, PP. 523-524. and should depend on the magnitude and direction of the ' u n ' n 0 u 19 superVisor 8 community 01 interest . With regard to unit placement the PLRB has ruled that in the event a supervisor possesses sufficient authority to effectively initiate evaluative and dis- ciplinary procedures the resulting community of interest between supervisor and rank and file employees is in- , v o o o C‘ o o . o o 20 suffiCient to justiiy incluSion of both in the same unit. Supervisors who do not possess such authority are placed in units with rank and file employees. In applying the "community of interest” criterion, the PERB noted that "it is the degree and nature of supervision" and not the "mere existence of supervisory responsibilities" that is conclusive in determining the strength of the community . 21 n . . . . . of interest. :or instance, in a case involVing police personnel the PERB found that lieutenants and sergeants "are mere assignors and overseers of work, whose super- visory responsibilities over patrolmen do not dictate . . . a conflict of interest . . ." in determining a unit . . 22 comprise of patrolmen, sergeants and lieutenants. H \0 Ibid., P. 523. N 0 Ibid., P. 524. 21 H 11b.do, I". 5230 ZZShimaoka, H.R., and Najita, J.m., "Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector: Unit Determination for Policemen", Industrial Relations Center Reports, University of Hawaii July-August, l9?l, P. 3. A significantaspect of the rationale applied in New York is that supervisory employees are obliged to act in the interests of the employer in the exercise of their super- visory functions, and thus become identified with the employer in any conflict of interest between the employer and rank and file employees.23 The greater the supervisor's authority and responsibility, the greater becomes his identification with the employer.2u When such identification with the em— ployer outweighs identification with rank and file employees, representation in separate units is required.25 Thus, though the existence of supervisory identification is a determinant of bargaining unit placement, no mention is found of any PERB concern over the effect of unit placement on the direction of identification. The Michigan Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) contains no express treatment of supervisor representation. However, through rulings in the Sgginaw County Road Commission and Hillsdale Community Schools cases the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) has provided protection to super- 26 visor collective bargaining rights. In the Detroit Library Commission case the MERC determined that supervisors who 238ers, Op, Cit., P. 123. 2”:bid.. P. 123. 25 . Ibld., P. 123. 26Saginaw County Road Commission, 1967 MERC Labor OPl96. Hillsdale Community Schools, 1968 MERC Labor OP859. hoL-rOutinely direct the work of their subord- :"‘.J wa I'ED‘yOEiS l {.1111 inates with the use of independent judgment should be repre- .‘ 4., ‘1 ' H 1 .c ' .1‘ _ ,. r, “Hg-1'-“ 4'- ., .- ., .. ,r 1. ," 421' .. .,..\"‘. , , . _ 23'? bfillbt‘fx li’l dill ..'; ECJilaut: lLOIh I'dfirx ELIIU :..L_i(‘: (.‘quiloyeec. with respect to the issue of supervisor reprcs.1tation as a 5 whole the mLhC found in its h llsc‘li Community Schools case as follows: "Supervisors in public employment are for the most part di ieient than supervisors in the private sectOi', not only in the concept of employei 10”“ltf but also in the periormahce of ldEHLllluvLB superviso:y iunctions. Under a civil service system, the authority super- vi.ois ndydrt.nave with regard to the iditq transier, suspens10n, layoff, recall and promotion is subject to more stringent review than in private empiovmc t. Turther, in civil service, employ'e es “er orming normal supervisory duties have the sale rights ard Tirotections as do rank and file cwulo ees with lESL'ECL to tenure, job security and civil service girevance procedures, and normally their salary increments and increases have a distinct relationship to increases granted to non-supervisory personnel. These factors tend to create a community of interest with employees supervised rather than with managementté“ Apparently in ac ccor d with the aoove reasoning the mLRC has further dec ideo that supe ervis ory status may be judged on how “the pos sitions identii y or align themselves with management”. Therefore, n Lichigan as in flew York, the direction {‘1 or supeivisor identi ication is a determinant of unit place— ment and no evidence is found of concern on the part of the board that placement may have an in luence on the direction 4 of identification. DULH the new York and michigan boarfs Detroit LN rary Comm ssion, léfr mLRC La oor Oijll. r O ‘ _‘_ _‘q C _ I ‘ w h —‘ 5‘ ff I) . '—, __ [..‘ 4'- 1 ‘..l".‘ f i: dillsoale Community_scnoo is, lean mLRo Labor Cribs. ShiihaOKa, 1:. Ii 0 , 311d lixajita, J I 1‘1 0 , CL; . Ci 0 g 2 0 ll apparently discount the opposing view which is aptly reiter- ated as follows: "Public employers are frequently not well organized for collective bargaining and never will be if they cannot create positions with effective responsibility for the administra- tion of collective agreements. Such posi- tions must necessarily be filled by persons who identify with, and are part of, manage- ment, not by those who are unionized, whether3O or not the union is exclusively supervisory." Allowing supervisors to organize and to present proposals perpetuates the vocational ambiva- lence that this group has long exhibited. The need at the present time is for management to identify members and to develop a healthy community of interest.31 Thus, while it is recognized in certain jurisdictions by statute or administrative determination that supervisors as a class of employees should share collectively in the determi- nation of their working conditions, those opposed to such collective activity on the part of supervisors contend that it will undermine the supervisor's sense of identification with management. Concern over this relationship between supervisor collective bargaining representation and identifi- cation with management'has entered into numerous discussions of legislative policy, but, to the writer's knowledge, no empirical evidence concerning its existence has been pub- lished to date. The object of this study is to empirically investigate this relationship with respect to a particular 3OWellington, H., and Winter, R., The Unions and the Cities, 1971, P. 114. 31Advisory,Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, Op. Cit., PP. 55'560 l2 group of public sector supervisors, police supervisors. The issue is significant with respect to all groups of public sector supervisors but the currently available resources will not permit involvement in the study of more than one group. Police supervisors are chosen because preliminary data indi- cates this group contains substantial numbers of both those who receive collective bargaining representation and those who do not.32 32{inexamination of a collection of police collective bar- gaining agreements assembled by the Michigan Municipal League reveals that in numerous instances supervisors are not rep- resented while in many other instances they are. lb METHODOLOGY .— 9 uefinition of Hypotheses The principal question raised in the general area of controversy outlined above is: Do supervisors who receive collective bargaining representation identify less with management than supervisors who do not receive collective bargaining representation? A subsidiary question is: Do supervisors who are associated with rank and file employees through bargaining unit and/or labor organization membership identify less with management than do those who are in dif- ferent bargaining units and belong to different organiza- tions? With regard to these two questions an examination of a collection of police collective bargaining agreements in effect in the state of Michigan provides evidence that the representation of police supervisors, officers of the rank of sergeant or higher, can be categorized as follows:1 1. Supervisors and rank and file police officers represented in the same unit by the same organization. 2. Supervisors and rank and file police officers represented in separate units by the same organization. Reference is made to a collection of collective bargaining agreements assembled by the Michigan Municipal League. |_.J .4: ' ). Supeivisors represented separately by an organization that represents rank and file personnel only in other jurisdictions. Lt. DUPGI'V'LSOI‘S FEE/I‘QSE‘I‘WGtU ESC‘PLLL'EJCLl" L3 '61. -..,_ : ,-. .' ,fl' ; . ,. -- «v‘ FAWNJ. . .‘ i-'i.c,d.T.-1Zatlpi- that LOSE; IlOL I'Ctfi": L... , I‘J‘IJC and file personnel in any jurisdiction. ‘u 5. Su ervisors receiving no re resentation. s This categorization provides a breakdown between supervisors' who do and do not receive representation, and between super- visors who are more and less closely associated with rank and file police officers, and therefore is a convenient frame- work for the definition of hypotheses. In terms of these five categories the primary objective is to determine if a difference in identification with management exists between those in category (5) and those incategories (l), (2), (3) and (h), under the hypothesis: There is no difference in identification with management between supervisors who receive collective bargaining representation and those who do not receive collective bargaining rep- resentation. The subsidiary objective is to determine if a difference in identification with management exists among supervisors in categories (1), (2), (3) and (4) under the hypothesis: There is no difference in identification with management among those supervisors in cate- gories (l). (2). (3) and (4). Accordingly, the study will focus on the relation- ship between the dependent variable, identification with management, and the independent variables, collective bar- gaining experience and structure of the bargaining unit. Additional independent variables to be considered for control purposes are size of police department, police rank, length of time served as a police supervisor, length of time served as a rank and file officer, total time served, age, and education. Size of police department in terms of number of sworn police officers is included because supervisors in larger departments may have more subordinates, and more supervisory functions, and more authority to exer- cise which may be related to greater identification with management. Police rank and length of time as a police supervisor may be positively related to identification with management because higher police rank and more experience as a police supervisor may increase the super- visor's familiarity with and involvement with the concerns and interests of management. Length of time as a rank and file police officer may be negatively related to identification with management because greater experience as a rank and file officer may increase sympathy to rank and file interests. Age and education also may have a positive relationship with identification with management because additional experience (age) and education may increase the supervisor's appreciation of the need for responsible management. Also additional education may increase the expectancy of promotion into management. These independent variables are not intended to be exhaustive in their explanation of the dependent variable but are chosen because they are directly measurable and it is plausible they are correlated with the independent variables of principal concern. It should be noted that the authorities who control access to the group of respondents used in the study placed certain restrictions on the scope of biographical and personal questions that could be asked. Included among these restrictions is information concerning income for all respondents, and information concerning age and education for those respondents above the rank of'sergeant. Definition and Measurement The Dependent Variable "Identification with Management" The term "identification" as used here is defined broadly as acceptance as one's own of the values and interests of a‘nafiqrnce group. In the context of this study a significant aspect of identification with management en- tails agreement with management on major issues of how the police department should be operated; because manpower com- prises a large factor in the provision of police services a preponderance of the issues pertaining to the operation of the department involve matters of persornel employment and super- vision. Accordingly, measurement of the relevant dimensions of supervisor identification with management is accomplished with the use of Likert-type attitude statements based on the conflicting interests of police management and rank and file police officers existing in the context of the police depart- ment. This involves identifying matters at issue between management and rank and file officers concerning wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, stating a resolu- tion of each issue in normative terms, and receiving responses from members of the respondent sample in terms of agreement or disagreement. Thus, identification with management is operationally defined and measured in terms of the respondent’s agreement or disagreement with the anticipated management position on selected collective bargaining issues. An assumption implicit in this definition of identi- fication is that there are conflicts of interest between police management and employees involving working conditions. In the general case, it has been recognized that the manage- ment of an organization has an interest in retaining discretion over the use of organizational resources in order to effectively accomplish the organization's goals, whether the goals are output oriented or are directed toward maintaining stability and harmony in the organization. Also, it has been recognized that employees have an interest in limiting management's dis- cretion to change working conditions, and that the effect of collective bargaining in many organizations has been to re- duce management's discretion. Thus, the extent and nature of discretion, or limits on discretion, have been recognized as a major focal point of conflict between management and employee interests. That this type of conflict is present in the context of the police department is evident in the activity of police unions, the content of police collec- tive bargaining agreements and arbitration decisions, and the nature of police supervisory responsibilities. Thus the operational definition and use of identification here is in accord with the actual conditions found in the organiza- tions of interest. The Pretest Questionnaire In order to produce a scaled instrument based on the above definition of identification the summated ratings procedure outlined in A. L. Edwards, Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction, was used.2 Approximately fifty issues existing in the context of police working conditions were identified through an examination of (1) police collective bargaining contracts, (2) police arbitration decisions, (3) publications on police supervision, (h) theory pertaining to collective bargaining behavior, and (5) available research findings on police labor relations. The list of references contains the sources consulted for this purpose. Appendix A lists the issues as originally assembled. Forty of these issues were used as the basis for constructing forty norma- tive issue resolutions in the form of Likert-type attitude 2Edwards, A. L., "Technigues of Attitude Scale Construction, 1957, P. 1&9. ,——L "" r 4 ’n. \,d‘\‘;"" .- 7* ‘ o ‘ t. . ‘ {v T"-’c ‘ ~ . f‘i fl I" '- * "H I; bl}. L'E'L.L‘:;AUC,. .‘ILELE .(«JLfl‘JH -;_;.p].';ET 1. €_VO.L‘\J. “1.01:, hE-‘Iea referred to as attitude statemen,s, wcre then compiled as ~-‘~ - .. _ ,.- r. , r . ‘ l ‘ 1 1,7 ‘ ,- . J -,.; -. b P \ " —'-‘ they diutmtr on inm: secc: , "tullb, {gum JUUIlJi-Lbbes o: tne 4—,. .4. ,- ' , ' ,l| ' r In ' ..‘ ..‘ .- }II‘€-o’bb \HrF‘LlC 1.? lit, (ib,aC.'.€(‘l dfs Ayptnt TX L. lertalning to tme inCependeht variables. Tnese uiog;apni , ,‘ ‘_;__ _ , _‘ r \-‘ ‘fl _ 1“,“ {.0 .~. '-‘- C" _u_ "\ “i K .. _~-'.' ‘44“ r I (ZUtfwblLN b cigimrar‘ 0!: tin; l_LlAL, ;lz\on.c4.£: bt{VEI.LI1 peggec) OJ L :3 H m (_l ('7 (P C: .i ‘ m rt f. O D “ “-V cs. :—’ ' w rt, :9: O O O 3 C' i~ h‘ F‘r‘ C) C ’T‘ 01 d t O pretest guestlornaire in Apperdix g. Lhe first page of the - 3 M A. 4‘. 1 -‘ .- —~' v- 4x dioxiisallc Cb.1L-dlfib at; LJ;L-IU'\ALAC blOI; o0 blit QUE. Flo tionnairc; also noxiuctions anlear tefore the att t .L ments and the biographical questions on th second and :ii pages respectively. no information that would enable the S— "L. -tate- n W (_ ax"*’\ ,l_f -_.‘ .2“. 4'... ‘-‘.V‘/" 1‘31.) .' ‘ ‘ ..'}- .3 _ 4“,. ,t. ,., I'E:bdl£.’ftl to lev'Iibll}; but Ltbllui'insno Wat) sougnt if; but: (ciLACD- tionnaire because of the need to preserve the anonymity needed to SECULt cooperation. I‘ f g. _ «.4. ‘ 5." «J ““1. - w ---,‘ lizr' :1_e btt;b HJJH 11.6 tetpt I\€:fidl_tt) 1‘ .I - ~~,/~— ,\~_l| ‘ ,» . -. V', .~~< r~~r1-, A-:.,~ '- -'x‘ -I" .Lli’C L: b: LEV) [2 ..~ LALS u_L OI y."‘-1‘i b ‘IAJaL- CLKJHIlILJ..s: T'ei {ZU U0 LINK O {LCLqHB Oi imxulce 3&qugnnci_ 1.75 at a< .10 in order to select statements that sufficiently discriminate between the high and low group, when each group numbers about twenty-five or more. In this case the groups numbered only thirteen each. There- \ fore a more restrictive selection rule, t,>1,€j at a< ,1, was {A used. This resulted in the selection of twenty-two state- (b ments which ar designated with a single asterisk in Appen- dix r. This group of twenty-two statements included fourteen ltthfid pel“ua1.1:g; to smxipe kg. colltv*tive trargaamilngd loui“ : I n ‘ "-‘L n f, " . 'r ‘1’ ' 3/ ' ~, ‘ g‘ r ‘I ; »‘\ . r: -r‘ *' f ‘ ‘3» V ” .v n"‘ ,-. -\-' ‘- l Ct‘fhb Mr}. L121 -.Illfié‘ LO CU; grinds: oLUIl, all. :Uttl" chihb 11:1 L91. Ling iht cecision was made to reduce the deCision rule ..‘ " "" 47 fi [TI—.1 "‘1‘ I —‘ "“' 1.‘-r “|‘ ‘>’. - \.-,«A‘ —4 . _ V" ion b l.»J to t i.5t -n Olflcl to enatle lHCiUb on o _ x , , u . 4 , , . -, -u ,_ ‘ . .-~- . 1 . , . . . ( ,_ ._ .\ in out; LCf‘LLi: O' tjll'be 0 tot LJ‘3A1Ci.vD 195:1; bulimia, mu ..i.;i.cLU\-...t:u CLlSCL 'i-E-:L(DIL ‘cii'il UL’IfolbL UVéfI‘ ram: Lilli 1-1.6 Oil—LCLFS, ELMO. LILLAS (A) prCdCC’EiJhOLE rtjnn:stntsquve and }LLdUSlCdJ, scale. ‘ihese -, »« r ...1 .e A ,_ —' .. «’- .'-1- .. I Eifau-i_o1_virai bit: C"? oughtnchlbb crl't‘ UCst‘rp-iuea hiLJ d UOMglE (“ 1,5.4.‘ ‘- 13:. veils; in appendix is. 4.1118 step l?) r grouuclne tme scale was gaLEd on the fluosment o: the re- CD 0 I- . rs (u i'. A *‘t, 'l‘ " ‘- " r- ‘r "I f - ‘. .1 '~ r‘. | ' r‘; '1 bealCHtrl" bileib tilt: artful clonal chitin. ..L ‘ ' ‘ 1| -| “’V 0 LA J. {‘I V/ilfll tilt; t'ufi low-Wives: Loinib (.TfuifxltOe-lfij? MM; Eat/alt \«L‘u‘ (7+. em" selected at t l.3t prcvc CO E‘L‘OEJCJiELLS 1,110 “”Lfi-lilt‘y’ ILO CALLSCI‘llhli'LE'i-LLE ill Ul'llSOI'l ..'- - - .‘r .1, ,..-i ..'/._ i: -i . 1, .-1-‘ ‘ _ -1 .1: 7 , 5: "- - -.‘ r ;\ Lil‘s; Luau b“?- wk) 4. stand btit LI VCL :1 o 'o .L . .1 J). Eat—it'll LlOI’l Ul V‘“ 'I -.. 3,, .‘ ' ‘. ‘3 I, ‘ , 71.! '. w, 7‘ .._.-- ,. 1.- or ..A‘ '1 ,l .1. “r" ;_ "A r _l__A',' ‘ ;>€Vew1 aouiftroimrL dULq_b¢bh‘L)butLumflitb 11A} C ifiwj wi_m1 a w lple J. , r .7 r .. ,-,,'1 — ,1 ‘ ,. _. a. “4. ,H ."..r‘ .3 A, ,(1 . ' . .,_ ism were .L'lleA'fitml ll; [gilt "146's La._U.'..‘;cL1.L€'S .1101 do: .111 belief"- p. ("I IEEfiJiFCil. Linus the _?inai__io1ma oé“the diu:stirnu1aiit9 corr- n K fl 5.: of'ill'VUXJ ‘ 15543 a. b (Ll LLJJ.‘ 6’ t; oil 'oE LLE.‘ £2135 O 1‘. ‘v’vl’llC Ii ENE} lat-23"" Lil'Vft,‘ comprised LL: attitude scale to hé used in the measurement he in reference to tne twtnty-Jive scale items onlv. albfl regard to the ;iograpnical items, modifications Inau6% lrl lixmns Ki) , \.p), \;q sin; ti‘/ lil ULKJEI‘ to _reuAJVe ‘iieses arhi afin‘lglhibyo rim? JLJLdl 1043a 0 tre‘\1u l.95 to t> 1.50 are the three items number five, six and sever1 respectively, in Table 1. Items five and six performed well producing t values in excess of 3.00 and able 1 demon- C: . F.) o H! p. 4.tu respectively. The data pre ente. m strate that, except for item number seven, the scale is comprised of items that effectively discriminate between the highest and lowes” scorinc: respondents. Th‘” the seal e L Q is essentially comprised of a collection of attitude .1. statements that work together in their tasn o discrimina- 1"?) r tion as evidenced by the reliaoili ty coefficient and the t values. furthermore, analysis reported hereafter demonstra- ting a positive relationship between rank and attitude score supports the conclusion Mh t the scale has validity; it is reasonable to expect mea uremeits of a respondents agreement with the usual management position on collective bargaining issues to increase with rank. he Anllg_is The analysis performed focuses on dete‘minihg vduather',.‘ CategOiv 3 ,1. 3,.3. L K-s4 3/ u ‘ _r ‘ Z . ‘ ,.| , . .1 , ‘. -. ,4. ‘2 r) K. bat6:40r'\/r 4 .L LI; 0 LL”... ‘u D . ((4 LL- \J‘ Lit F I“ }_J I‘x }_ [w Ca'teg-gory Total 173 1?}.00 45" e5-LC 21“ 2 Degrees of reedom = 4 x“ 29.VC SlfinlllC8‘ NIL ata<. 0L5 iWC mprised 0; 2t lieute narts, 4 Captains, e ASSIStalt Chief 9 Chiefs. CLO 8.1 As demonstrated by the data in Table 2, the rela- I.._JI HI :5 ’T{\ tionship between r nk and collective barga category is subs ta Mia . The frequency breakdown indicates that super- visors aoove the rank of se13eant have a strong tendency for placement in categories four and five and that sergeants have a strong tendency for placement in categories one and two. hach achieves approximate comparability catween actual and expccted frequencies in category three. )4 In view of this evidence of association between rank and collective bargaining category, the effects of rank are controlled in the analysis of the relationship between attitude score and collective bargaining category by limiting the principal analysis to the responses of sergeants. This' reduction in scope will not materially reduce the value of the research because sergeants comprise the first line of supervision which in any organization is an especially crit- ical factor in the management of personnel. The finding of a relationship between rank and attitude score is of value as a demonstration of the scales validity. Police rank is correlated with attitude score as presented in Table 3. TABLE 3. Correlations Between Rank and Attitude Score n = 219) R an k 1‘ Sergeant -.34 Lieutenant .19 Captain .14- Assistant Chief .09 Chief .17 The values in Table 3 suggest there is some moderate positive correlation with all ranks above sergeant and a negative correlation with the rank of sergeant. A t test of the significance of the difference between the mean score for sergeants and the mean score for )2 all those aUOVE the rank c sergeant wroduces a t value of 3.1? significant at a< .eObj. A simple regression equation using attitude score as the dependent variable and rank as 1' the lflCGJGUCGHt variable deiired as a binary between sergeant 1 l and the higher ranks, prixuces an I of .113 and an s ratio of 27.5 significant at a< .CCOS. Augmenting this equation with the control variables available for all ranks and with binary specifications for categories (l), (2}, (3) and (4) produced the results contained in Table 4. The highly 1 significant coefficient on rand is evidence that the attitude scale is measuring diilerences associated with ranK. TAgL: 4. negression Analysis of the E fects of Rank on Attitide Score for All hangs tn = 4i?) hegression standard Signiiicance Variable Coefficient Error Level Sergeant -5.70 2.15 .CCUE Category 1 -3.32 2.2; .CjC Category 2 -l.4l 2.59 .finf Category 3 -l.21 Z.25 .596 Category 4 - .3; 2.56 .9Ci Lept. Size .eeo4 .tneé ,54e (Jo. of sworn ofi.) months served As supervisor - .010 ,Q4 .51, As ranh and file - .eb? .11 .573 ‘3 g‘ = 4.05, a< .eeoj P‘ 4 Analysis of the Control Variables Other Than Rank The control variables that remain to be examined are age, education, department size and time served in super- visory and rank and file capacities. Examination of these variables will be restricted to the responses of sergeants. Table 5 contains the simple correlations for these variables and collectivctargaining category. TABLE 5. Correlations Between Category and Control Variables For Sergeants (n = 173) Collective Super- Nonsuper- Bargaining Edu- Dept. visory visory Category Age cation Size Time Time Category l .24 -.l4 -.2 .09 .13 Category 2 -.O9 -.09 -.22 -.08 -.07 Category 3 .04 -.O4 -.12 .2 .02 Category 4 -.21 -.O9 .35 -.16 -.12 Category 5 -.06 .04 .31 -.10 -.Ol Overall, the largest coefficients observed are moderate in magnitude. There is a moderate correlation between age and Category 1 and 4, with those in category l tending to be older and those in category 4 tending to be younger. There are no noteworthy correlations between education and category except for the slight tendency for those in cate- gory l to have fewer months of education. There are moderate correlations between department size and all categories ex- cept category 3. bdbeeol es 4 and 5 tend to be correlated with larger deg artments and categories l and 2 with smaller part~er ts. The correlation for time served as a supervisor suetest a slight tendency for supervisors to have served a ..l relatively shorter period of time ior category 4, and a rela- tively greater period for category 3. About the same corre- lations are observed for total time served which in addition, shows a slight tendency jor greater mannitude in category 1. no nOtabie correlations are Observed for nonsupcrvisory time served. Cverall, there is modest evidence that in categ :ory 4 the re is a tendency for the departments to be larger and staffed by youhs‘r officers who have served less time. Category l tends to be comprisej of smaller departments staiied by older officers :ith relatively less education who have served longer periods of time. Category 2 also tends to be comprised oi nmdL er departn ents While categ'ory 5 tends to be made up of larger departments. it should be noted however, that these correlations are modest. exam ir ation of the mean, range and standard devia— proviOe an indication of the tion for each variable sno uid representativeness of the sample on these variables. Table contains such descriptive statistics for each variable. The values suggest fairly normal distributions for age and edu- cation. Le Iaituert size is distributed with a large number of observations below the mean and a small number of very large departments TALLE r. Iescrittive 5t.tistics for dontrol Variaoles tier Than mans for sergeants ’\n = 13 ) Range 5 tandard Variable min. Max. mean Deviation :1) (D A ((1 (D SID h (J l \_/ |__! k.- r K; K L \( C‘ \l O \ J K, \ Education (years" a l 1).} l.él Dept. Size (no. Enr105ed) v.0 3CU0-0 iwlo32 129“-70 months served as a supervisor 2.0 300.0 cl.33 45.72 4.‘. , - .. . ..‘.- montns served as a rann and file officer 12.0 324.3 ll:.23 LU.U Cverall the distributions for all the variables are broad whicn is evidence that a failure to detect an associ- ation between attitude score and any of the control variaoles could not result from insufiicient variation in these variaole U) in the sample. Analysis oi attitude score and ooliective gargaining category Attitude score was distriouted among sergeants as descrioed in Taslc 7. TABLE 7. Distribution of Attitude Score Among Sergeants (n = 173) “ange Standard Minimum maximum Mean Deviation u 77 36.0 10.8 The observed distribution is sufficiently broad to enable detection of associations that may exist between attitude score and any of the independent variables. Regression analysis was used to assess the presence of a relationship between collective bargaining category and attitude score. The equation specified attitude score as a function of category and the several control variables. The results contained in Table 8 indicate that the equation and the constituent independent variables have virtually no explanatory value. Neither the overall equation nor any of the coefficients demonstrated satisfactory statistical sig- nificance, though several exhibited the expected sign. The low significance level for the equation is evidence that the equation as a whole has no eXplanatory value. The low significance level attained for each of the coefficients is evidence that none of the independent variables individually possesses any explanatory value. thus with regard to ser— geants the sample provides no evidence that collective bar- gaining cateaory is related to differences in attitude score. K.) r’ ' ‘ Note that category 3 is excluded from the equation, and thus automatically has a coefficient of O. A further test of the hypothesis that there is no difference in attitude score among sergeants in the different categories can be based on a direct comparison between the two categories with the most divergent coefficients. An F test of the significance of the difference between the coefficients for categories 1 and 4 produced an F ratio of 3.18 significant at a< .076. This difference does not attain a satisfactory level of significance and thus fails to provide evidence that collec- tive bargaining category is related to differences in attitude score. TABLE 8. Regression Analysis of the Effects of Category on Attitude Score Among Sergeants (n = 173) Regression Standard Significance Variable Coefficient Error Level Category 1 - -3.84 2.43 .12 Category 2 -2.18 2.77 .43 Category 3 - .15 2.60 .95 Category 4 2.39 3.03 .43 Age (months) -.0005 .02 .97 Education (months) -.03 .05 .59 Dept. Size -.0007 .0008 .39 (No. of sworn off.) Months served as supervisor -.02 .03 .49 as rank and file -.007 .02 .74 R4 = .035 F = .65, a < .75 A separate regression analysis was conducted on the responses of the sample of lieutenants. This sample included 25, with none in categories 1 and 2, 4 in category 3, 10 in category 4, and 11 in category 5. The equation specified attitude score as a function of category, department size, months served as a supervisor, and months served as a rank and file officer. The results are presented in Table 9. on Attitude iABLE 9. Regression Analysis of the Effects of Category Score Among lieutenants. kn = 25) Regression Standard Significance Variable Coefficient Error Level Category 3 -23.8 8.18 .009 Category 4 ~14.9 5.71 .017 Dept. Size .005 .001 .001 (No. sworn off.) Months served . as supervisor .02 .07 .754 as rank and file - .14 .06 .029 R2 = .527 F = 4.23, a < .00 \C3 The F ratio attained was highly significant, and the equation was able to account for about 53% of the variation in attitude score in the sample. Each coefficient, except that for months served as a supervisor, attained a high level of significance. Category 5 is excluded from the equation and therefore has a coefficient of zero. Relative to category 5 placement in categories 3 and 4 result in a sharp drop in attitude score. An increase in department size of 100 officers results in an increase in score of one-half point. Finally, an increase of 10 months in time served as a rank and fil officer results 0 cencr trat ceilCctive 7‘. J' If: ‘.’~ . --r~ '7) -.-\ F . ¥ I‘v- 4‘ ‘9, ~ 1w: taL-I€i lluacl,cinic.-u .-i a I A.— . ". -- . '1 .1-.- 7‘ .1. ..‘! i I'hfl .‘ ’1’. (— 1— ,r‘ ' ‘, J ‘ Y leaned“); lCcht-cu vu oil; in a decrease in score of 1.4 points. These results are evi- tarpairdfngaLitegory emu; certairg \_,J a1nezzc rerquiCLon ( t 1n oloblfllne C; lolic; 0*ficers who engage in \ str1f1e ox other joo actions should be 31e<3t Co discnarge. the 1 y of suspended police \ ofi'ccrs eflmlej Cc ul' ‘1li penoiru: the curtcome cfi'zm1 ap- :1 ('1 H- :3 (C? *5 A“ A police o1ficer has more inter- ( ests in common wltn police mufiufiv- Inent iflMMQ wilfll'tne aerzluN1Cr his command. In 3 ~01 lC ce UEUaKLMCHL in whlcn Che o_C:ice1s are represenCed in collec- tifive udl"i ;Ln1115; c; a llfllljfl (Dr ()Lluir employee association, toe lollowing 1atue1s SfiOuld C sucject to collec- tl_ve oetrg'1111lru;: .) Len; tn Oi'IWQNLlar worfi week I . Inc schedollng 01 worhlng flours A~ [—x /—\ Ler¢yfi1 of lLUMfll period A \l A \a ’- \4’ A. )( \_/ fl V P\ \c ,- \r r‘ \.' \.1 A A M H I \p’ \/ \.'/ \‘I (ll) (1;) Cu do I . I v\\ ,- l\ i“? \ (L4) \ Ir?‘ chjg.ifll fl . r“ ;’ \L1)J;L. é’x )( \v,’ ,‘x \_I ,.. \_ :9. 'r ‘I I r‘ I , r \. I\, o \J‘ \ Lremium lay for overLimo work k )k Lay for standby duty K )\ ‘V V /" \J ,— .o' \. ' L f" V J / {\\ x f V T\ I O ‘ I’ + Lime lay for court duty Curing L )( ail 'C’WalLC \-’ “.“". rs LVN; h- rs‘ \_l \I \_«‘ r\ \- \_/ “I A K .1 rk) \/ pLJDTILLflgfi aLL «DWCu1ce ’ ". x V - \‘J' ’I- '. - 'o“ c" \‘N’K'h '3 .,, o "I r." I Q 1"liiE' :3 {It DBLiiiLlLL1;f'_}J £41: bulk) ULOLLb . \J/~) \ , fc \. fc \ / I. r‘\ .. \ ‘ -' . ’— r.- \_/ ‘0 f“\ \/ \ / f~ \_.I r—§ \ I \z ’- ,‘K L; \. Lu I s V \ I‘iLli‘cS L: i; ”LE-s L‘:‘:‘.71_I;L;'L g: La‘~.’ i?" ‘ \z' \./ nuLES oeLeranLng e i- U. a f‘ L... L-i "-.’ , T 'r—‘ U) ‘J *\ (E f‘ A. /‘\ fix r‘ r \. h \_/ /_ \ f \4' \_,- f" \_l .L. f k \— I\ O (\ mules deLerming LLbVAI procedure ~ rrooaLLonarg perioo for new ( )( )L )( o;ficers " ' Lue re ui rem en L LLLaL poLLce L )L )( OLLLCCIS Wear name Lugs AheLner patrol should oer- Lormeu Ly inuiviuual patrol- men or L; Lesms or two or more paLroLmen Lne r quiremeut LuaL poLice \ )L /K )L )( ) * (4L) ;.ZL ' icers resLoe wLLnL n Lne Lsdiction of Lneir em- \v’ f'\ V V f‘ V I 7 fl. ‘\ O I.‘ I I V \J O r N H A \— r‘ \. f“ \‘ h \_. rx \. \ f‘ K; ‘ V. V I. O \f P Lhere wzre no right or wrong answers to the questions ou answereo on Lne previous gages; how you IeLL was Lue nest s er. Lye remaining questions are factual anu have to do “LLn such things as your empLoymenL nisLory, poLL ce rula, uuc caL:L on, age, anLL Lhe Line. Lour aneWers Lo the :actuaL ouestions are very importanc Lo Lne EHAMQJ. Lblease anSWGI‘ELS :fu uLLy and corfiwxyuhy as you can. Iour replies, Line all Lne resL o; gzour auwers, wLLL oe used conLLoenLLuLLy in our research p103 ecL. ’ ,~1 _ A» ‘V . ' _. _. 111“"? _LO;£.:LL’LU .LILLL?L‘.L-3_LL(JIL L. nhab Ljyc of LoLLce oepaeran are you presenLLy emyLoJeu W]. 01' .’ -1 UiLy EoLice DoparLML exut CouuLy oberdLF'lhypa_rzmeht LowmsuLp Lefa rLuenL SLaLe rolwce Other, please specify Ar‘ r- /—\‘/-\ V \/\_/\_/\_ IN ' ' 4— 4. «uaL Ls the LoLuL numqu of uLLformeo oILLcers \aLL ranfis) ELM} Loyeu o; your )resL L employerk Ill" ‘1 'llclluv 1|: K‘h l\rj' I moat is Your present assignmehLY ( ) “atrol Zureau itecLive Bureau L ) LLher, please egoc1fy ,. » \. F?” ’l . ' "* *.-'~.". ’ ~ ' 'I-‘- ‘ ', ”mat 18 your yiebeut lanfi. Corgoral L ) here Lajor \ V CapLain ,‘\ \, .1 FT W T *— .1 r1“) r.- (1 (D [n l-r~ K (D now long nave you Leem in your present ranx? gears monLne How long have you been emplOJCd in PUliUE EMPEFViSOTX ranks altogeLner? years months how long have you oeen employ ed as a police officer altoaeLner: years montns (ir clucidb all laLLS L'W“H(3'Livu ¥w~wcn'ri-”“ *vwfl\w a“? v dbLl-JL’ L-1.~/-\ ‘ICL1L.::L_L.1__.I':, .11. .L c11n;:.b_LOm 7.. , ‘ |l —. 3" ._ u . c A — 1 1' M ‘, W'firl- ,_ - - ‘ A- \‘r \ ~.‘ , .L A m , Alfie “LOLA Es. Lhtmudl Us. ('2. uhlbl‘ or 0 URL”)? C .-‘J..L’KJL .1 , 11L)“.;.’,L1L“. ‘L " '- - ' . , ‘ fi , r‘ flglp 1;“ 4-:n~\x ;*M:r W lin.;w‘rra‘fi. C 11 no, ple Se proceed to question 9 e? if ves, what is the Name 01" Lhc organizatior? l neon below. ) y I -1 "\ ’1 (2 i114] ' \JLK'\ r". \.- t ,1 of lolice, Lodge Number ce oiiicers ’SsociaLioL or miouigan, l number loan Leoeratiom of bLaLe, County and cipal meloyee, Local numoer L ) Service Lmyloyees luternational Union 0: hoan Anerica, local homoer ) LELOFEFS lLoCrNJULOflal Lm on of Aoth America, local hummer L ) lutei rnaLioxial Lrotherhood of lea” ms Lars, Local.1uunoer L ) A local indepenoent association not afliliaLed witn any or the aoove, please sueciiy r~ ( } LLner, llease specify K ) IO not iflOW Loes th1s organizai1on represent you ix coll ctlve L. algal 111115‘)’: I ‘1‘ ‘ L J i‘S 11 you are a supzrvl qor, does this same organization regresext paLrolmcn or other nonsupervisory officers C... in your C18 aitme t in collecfiive bargaimimg? L ) les \ ) LO \C rr '- 11" 311.1: , goes TL} is 012211.221 L1011 I‘LL .rr’L,n(.1.t I;1a‘LI‘O].11.eI‘1 or QLher MOnsuoe1¢1<01v o,-1ce1s in your oepartmemt in Lht sane Largaring uuit Lunoer the same contract) 1.111 'L11 3/1111 : ,au1a1L1o“ you 00 not Delorfi to represent you .LJUUL.) 8.11.)! 01.5; L) 111 p011€0 1111/1. 11.115211111111233 K ) 3.668 K we 1y yes, wnaL is Lie name 01 Ch is 01Ca111aL On. ileaee , . ‘ , . - -.' ‘. ,1 ‘1 .‘ ,.. ._ 1,...“ f r 5' 1.8161. T20 bllL/ .leL 0.1 0.1. 51111113.. b1U11x. in QuES LiOIl L: o Loes Luis ame orVarizaLion regres ent {atrolmen or otne Duierw1oorv 01110cr3 in your department in collective If yes, ooes this o‘gan1LaLiou reoresent latroi men or OLher norsurervisory 011icers in Joui hbydLLhtut i1 Lue sa_e pdl(fithLw* U1M L Lugoer'ijua same ccmrtract; mjjn1 you? \)68 \ \ 1 1 Lo r' I HAL QUES Tl OI‘CI‘JAI RE Researdh Survey, A.research group in The School of Labor and Industrial Relations at Midhigan State University is in the process of studying the attitudes of police officers toward.working conditions and employment relations in police departments. Several hundred questionnaires will be completed by police officers from a large number of police departments. No questionnaire will be studied individually; all will be combined into aggregate tables for analysis. Neither the police management nor anyone else in your department will ever see your completed questionnaire or have access in any way to the answers you as an individual give. YOur cooperation in answering all of the questions will be very muCh appreciated. With.many thanks, MM Kent Morrmann ReseardhlAssistant Below are some statements which describe how police officers might feel about their working conditions and other employment matters. Some of the statements will request you to indicate your agreement or disagreement. For eaCh such statement please put a check (/) in the space showing whether you: SA = strongly agree A = agree somewhat N = neither agree or disagree D = disagree somewhat SD = strongly disagree Check one and only one answer for eadh statement. Tell how you personally feel. When layoffs of police personnel are required, supervisors should not be allowed to displace or bump patrolmen. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (1) Length of service should be the most important consideration in deciding which of two patrol- men is promoted into a supervisory position. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (2) The police supervisor should be free to dwmfilfismaflskasdwmfleasnaflaL ()( )() ()( ) (3) Extra patrolmen should be scheduled to work during heavy crime hours. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (H) Patrol cars should be manned by only one patrolman unless special conditions require the use of two man teams. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (S) Patrolmen should be entitled to receive pay or compensatory time off at an overtime rate for hours they are required to work in excess of the regular work day. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (6) Patrolmen should be entitled to receive pay or compensatory time off at an overtime rate whenever required to do court duty during their regular time off. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (7) Patrolmen should be entitled to receive pay or compensatory time off at some fraction of the regular rate of pay whenever required to be on standby status. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (8) A.police supervisor Should be free to transfer patrolmen from one patrol area to another as conditions require. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (9) SA Police departments should take action on citizen complaints against police officers. ( ) To discourage the imprOper use of sick leave, the police department should arrange spot check home visits to police officers off on sick leave. ( ) Police officers who engage in strikes or other job actions should be subject to discharge. ( ) The pay of suspended police officers should be withheld pending the outcome of an appeal board hearing. ( ) A police supervisor should place the interests of his men above the interests of the department. ( ) In a police department in which the officers are represented in collective bargaining by a union or other employee association, the following matters should be subject to collective bargaining: The scheduling of working hours. ( ) Length of lunch period. ( ) Pay for standby duty. ( ) Gun allowance. ( ) Rules determining promotions. ( ) Rules determining discipline. ( ) Probationary period for new officers. ( ) The requirement that police officers wear name tags. ( ) Whether patrol should be performed by individual patrolmen or by teams of two or more patrolmen. ( ) The requirement that police officers reside with— in the jurisdiction of their employment. ( ) The maximum.patrolman salary should be the following percentage of the minimum sergeant's salary: (Please check (/) one) ( ) 95% ( ) 90% ( ) 85% ( ) 80% ( ) 75% ( ) other, please specify .A ( ) ( ) ( ) SD ) (10) (11) (12) (13) (1M) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (2M) (25) There were no right or wrong answers to the questions you answered on the previous pages; how you felt was the best answer. The remaining questions are factual and have to do with suCh things as your employment history, police rank, education, age, and the like. Y0ur answers to the factual questions are very important to the study. Please answer as fully and correctly as you can. Your replies, like all the rest of your answers, will be used confidentially in our researCh project. 10. Employment Information With what type of police department are you presently employed? ( ) City Police Department ( ) County Sheriff Department ( ) Township Department ( ) State Police ( ) other, please specify What is the total number of officers employed by your present employer? (Include all ranks of unifOrmed and plain clothes officers and detectives.) What is your present assignment? ( ) Patrol Bureau ( ) Detective Bureau ( ) other, please specify What is your present rank? ( ) Corporal ( ) Sergeant ( ) Lieutenant ( ) Captain ( ) Major ( ) Deputy Chief ( ) Chief ( ) other, please specify HOW long have you held your present rank? years months HOW long have you been employed as a police supervisor altogether? years months How long have you been employed as a police officer altogether? (Include all ranks held.) years months What is your age? years How many years of f0rna1.education have you completed? Please circle. 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 1H 15 16 l7 18 19 20 What is your sex? ( ) male ( ) female 11. 12. \j‘. Collective Bargaining Information Are you a member of a union or other employee association? ( ) No If no, please proceed to question 12. ( ) Yes If yes, what is the name of the organization? Please check below. ( ) Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge Number ( ) Police Officers Association of Michigan, Local Number ( ) American Federation of State, County 8 Municipal Employees, Local Number ( ) Service Employees International Union of North America, Local Number ( ) Laborers International Union of North.America, Local Nr. ( ) International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Number ( ) A local independent association not affiliated with any of the above, please specify ( ) Other, please specify ( ) Do not know Does this organization represent you in collective bargaining? ( ) No ( ) Yes Does this same organization represent officers below the rank of sergeant in your department in collective bargaining? ( ) No ( ) Yes If yes, does this organization represent officers below the rank of sergeant in your department in the same bargaining unit (under the same contract) with you? ( ) No ( ) Yes Does any union or other employee association you do not belong to represent you in collective bargaining? ( ) No ( ) Yes If yes, what is the name of this organization? Please refer to the list of organizations in question 11. Does this same organization represent officers below the rank of sergeant in your department in collective barga1n1ng? ( ) No ( ) Yes If yes, does this organization represent officers below the rank of sergeant in your department in the same bargaining un1t (under the same contract) with you? ( ) No ( ) Yes 111 111111211111111311111 111111111111111111111 11111111