Question Description
Need help with my Writing question – Im studying for my class.
Boston
Police Strike of 1912
Diane
Lewicki
Lea439:
Politics & Law Enforcement
Instructor:
Patrick Norris
March
19, 2015
Boston
police strike of 1919
Faced
by an oversupply of manpower from soldiers returning home from the First World
War and high costs of living, which had significantly surpassed the police
wages the Boston police force, was operating under working conditions, worse
than the most unskilled factory workers. They worked seven days a week
translating to between 72 and 98 hours a week and taking a day off every other
week. The police officers were paid modest salaries and they were made to sleep
in their stations, just in case they were summoned back for duty (Farmer,
2011). Other grievances included the deplorable state of the police stations
and the fact that they were not paid for making court appearances. Due to the
structural challenges in dealing with their grievances the officers decided to
consider unionisation and sought guidance from the American Federation of Labor
(AFL). The police were conferred a union charter in August 1919 which was
followed by state legislation barring public officials in Boston from joining
or forming a union. This was a wrong move as despite the officers having
legitimate grievances, all efforts were directed towards suffocating their
calls for fair wage and better working conditions.
On
August 20 the commissioner of police suspended 19 police officers for engaging
in the push for unionization asserting that police officer as public officers
should put the safety of the public ahead of their collective bargaining
interests. On the evening of September 9, 1919 the Boston police strike began
with their main grievance being barring their unionization and their
affiliation with AFL. 1,117 officers out of the total 1,544 personnel of the
Boston Police Department took part in the strike and declined to report for
work. Since the supply of labour was in plenty, the police commissioner was
able to hire an entirely new police force. However the actions of the brave
1,117 police officers paid off as the new hires were engaged on better terms
including better working conditions and higher pay.
Boston
police strike of 1919
There
are a number of issues that come out from the Boston police strike case of
1919. Issues to do with the legality of strikes of public servants, whether
unionised or non-unionised, the status of unionization of public servants
especially for critical services such as the police officers, and firemen and
the handling public officers grievances by their managers. First and foremost,
it is agreeable that at the time there existed actual grievances that were not
only limiting the performance of the police officers responsibilities but had
the potential of adversely affecting the residents of Boston. The next concern
regarding the case would be was the Boston police unionization necessary? From
the way the police commissioner handled the issue it is clear that there was
disconnect of understanding especially on his part with regards to the affairs
of his officers. This might be attributed to the fact that at the time, there
was a lack of proper channel or structure of communication that would ensure
that actual information is effectively passed to the management. That is what
collective bargaining is all about.
Having mouthpiece that does not fear
retribution and therefore very effective in passing information across to the
management without any reservations. However, even with the existence of an
effective mouth piece of the employees in the form of union leaders the
management should also be willing to openly and constructively take part in the
negotiations. It is a give and take situation. If the police commissioner would
have sat down with the leaders of the pseudo labour union and considered their
grievances, then probably the strike would never have happened. Given the
existing economic and working conditions one would say that the unionization of
the Boston police department was necessary at the time. Since all the efforts
made by the police in attempting to air their grievances were not taken
seriously then the only available option at the time was to seek guidance on
unionization from the American Federation
Boston
police strike of 1919
of Labor.
However it should be noted that the labour union was only to be formed for the
purpose of delivering effective services to the police officers in Boston. This
agenda to be successful is to be mutual across board, which is, by the
management and by the labour union leaders.
Though not given much attention at it deserves, the 1919 Boston police
department strike was successful as the police commissioner became aware of the
existing conditions and was able to offer better working conditions and wages
to the new police officers.
Collective
Bargaining
The
post 1960s era saw a lot of changes regarding collective bargaining for public
sector workers in the United States (Edwards, 2010). Here, Edwards (2010), points out that before
the 1960s, the courts was of the opinion that public sector workers were not
entitled to union privileges as the private sector workers do such as
collective bargaining. The author states that this position swiftly changed
beginning 1960s and that by 2010, 26 states had collective bargaining for all
public officers, while 12 states had collective bargaining for a fraction of
their public officers. This must have been an achievement for the public
officers and their labour unions but not for the United States government.
According to Freeman and Han (2012), the post 2010 campaign against public
sector collective bargaining was triggered by the 2008-2011 United States
budget crises in states and localities. The authors reveal that the 2008-2011
budget crises was partly brought about by public sector collective bargaining
which also weakened the efforts of the government in dealing with the crisis. A
simple explanation of this would be that public sector unions collectively
bargain for better salaries and benefits and with this comes an increase in the
public sector services expenditure resulting to a budget deficit.
Boston
police strike of 1919
Edwards (2010) highlights the plight of
a number states whose high expenditure on health plan and pension resulted to
state debt rising significantly. This is just one of the negative effects of
public sector collective bargaining on the on state budgets. Upon realising the
detrimental effects of public sector collective bargaining, states such as
Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin and Ohio decided to wage a war against the
practise (Freeman
and Han, 2012). The period of 2011 to 2012 witnessed a total 1707bills
regarding labour relations of public sector employees in 50 states majority of
which were intended to lessen the influence of public sector labour unions and
their collective bargaining rights. However, Freeman and Han (2012) points out
that the only exception were the bills concerning public safety employees, that
is, firefighters, police officers, and other law-enforcement groups.
Collective
bargaining for public officers as compared to the private sector usually
presents a challenge given that the private sector derives its income from
revenues or profits while the public sector derives its income mainly from
taxes. And that is why states are becoming more uncomfortable engaging labour
officials in negotiations with regards to collective bargaining for public
workers. Furthermore, unlike in the private sector where the management/
executives usually negotiate with the union leaders, the public sector comes
with its own complications (Lewin et al., 2012). In the public sector, the
management which is the appointing authority is in most cases does not make
decisions with regards to pay increase or benefits of employees. Actually in certain
cases, the public sector management can only make recommendations with the
function of reviewing salaries and benefits being handled by a different
autonomous body and through a laid down process. Moreover, the private sector
Boston
police strike of 1919
usually
has greater control over the inadequacies brought about by the labour unions.
Here, private enterprises have an array of options on how to respond to issues
brought about by
collective
bargaining agreements such as redoubling the quality of their personnel where
the is a increase in union wages. These are some of the incentives that public
sector managers dont have at their disposal.
For law enforcement officers, collective
agreements have been observed to introduce inclusivity in the departmental
policy and procedure making process by involving the union leaders in
negotiating the details unlike before where the process was solely left to the
law enforcement managers (Veatch, 2008). Here the negotiation between the law
enforcement officers management and he labour union officials usually focuses
on two main elements affecting the employees, that is, the economic benefits
and the employee working conditions. However the benefits of having a
collective bargaining might be eclipsed as a studies have been able to shown
that non-unionized police employees earn higher wages than unionized.
Unionization of police officers do not lack any benefits though as Methé and
Perry (1980), observes a general positive influence of unionization on wages.
Labour Relations
Labour
relations play a crucial role in ensuring a harmonious relationship between an
organizations management and its employees or employees’ representatives
(Hatch, 1987). Trade unions and collective bargaining form the basic features
of labour relations. The unionisation of law enforcement is still a debatable
issue with both sides to the debate likely to front viable arguments.
Nevertheless, what proponents and opposers of unionization of law enforcement
need
Boston
police strike of 1919
to
be in agreement is that, the law enforcement officers are a special category of
public officers owing to the nature of their responsibilities and what the
general society expects from them. By virtue of that engaging in labour
relations related activities in the same wave as persons
engaged
in the private sector might be unwise. There are two main reasons for this.
First, law enforcement officers are professionals with the responsibility of
preserving the law, order and security (Loader, 1997). This means that granting
the law enforcement officers the opportunity to belong to a trade union might
not only be grave repercussions to the well being of the society but also to
the country. This can be attributed to the fact that law enforcement
departments are highly disciplined organization making trade union related
activities such as go slows synonymous to mutiny. As public officers having the obligation of
maintaining peace, law enforcement officers are usually bound to selflessly
preform their duties by the Oath of Service.
In
order to fully comprehend the relationship between labour relations and the law
enforcement institutions, it is significant to discuss the origin of the trade
union movement. Poor pay levels and extreme working conditions resulted to the
emergence of the trade union movement in 19 Century (Hall et al., 2002). Trade unions were created as institutions to
promote the welfare of workers at the
workplace by providing a platform for the workers to express their views and
opinions. This is based on the premise that employer-employee relationship
based on the contract of employment is never between equals. Here employers are
always in a stronger position to influence the terms of the contract with the
employee (Armstrong, 2006).
Currently trade unions perform a wide array of services for their trade members
mainly focussing on the main issues affecting employees. Some of the key issues
that are currently handled by trade unions include negotiating rules that
safeguards the members against any arbitrary decisions of business enterprises.
It is here that the justification of trade unions in law enforcement
organizations complicates the whole organizational structure. That is why
despite the International Labour Organisation (ILO) recognizing the right to
organize and bargain collectively as well as the freedom of association as
fundamental human rights, the rights do not necessarily belong to the Police
and the Armed Services.
Despite
the existence of valid reasons for the police not having unions, a number of
countries boast of the presence of vibrant trade unions of law enforcement
officers. For example studies have highlighted that union officials and heads
of police departments are working together to improve the welfare of police
officers in the United States (DeLord and Sanders, 2006; Polzin and DeLord,
2006). A survey by DeLord and Sanders (2006), highlighted that police chiefs
and that union officials officially meet approximately once a month where they
discuss issues that are similar to the interest of both sides. The survey
brought out the fact that unlike the general perception that the relationship
between labor and management is full of tension, the actual position is that
both sides perceive each other as cooperative and friendly. Additionally, the outcome of the survey
indicated that it was a mutual feeling that the cooperation between the law
enforcement officers union officials and the management of the law enforcement
institutions will not adversely affect the relationship between the unions and
their members. The existence of such a relationship can be accredited to the
initial relationship between police managers and police union leaders where
they regularly work side by side as law enforcement officers. Even with the
existence of such an accommodating relationship, its imperative that we take
cognisance of the underlying issues present in the relationship. To start with,
the existence of separate interests between the police union leaders and police
managers can sometimes put a strain to their relationship. Conflicting
interests might stem from the lack of understanding of the responsibilities of
the other party especially in law enforcement officers disciplinary cases. It
is always the labour unions goal to employ all reasonable measures to aid its
members when in trouble especially if such is stemming from the trade unions
members employer.
Police
labour unions have been the source of serious conflicts of interests pitting
their interests against the interests of the public. For instance when a police
officer has committed a crime, possibly murder, manslaughter or assault and the
police union together with the suspects colleagues organize fundraisers to
raise funds for the officers defence a number of serious violations arise. This
act merely pits the interests of the police against those of the general public
whom they are meant to serve. Edwards (2010), underlines that public sector
labour unions, such as that of the law enforcement officers have been known to
undermine the governments endeavour to manage expenditure and increase
efficiency, the unions are also known for protect poorly performing employees
while advocating for minimum staffing levels and at the same time opposing the
introduction of new technologies that threaten the jobs of their members.
Police officers are supposed to enforce the law and ensure that justice is
served. Protecting suspected police officers from being investigated or brought
to justice by labour unions certainly fronts the argument against law enforcement
labour unions. Even so, the labour unions of law enforcement officers do play a
crucial role in safeguarding the interests of law enforcement officers against
abuse by the police management. The best approach is to come up with structures
that would ensure that law enforcement labour unions do not abuse their powers
in the name of protecting the interests of their members.
References
Armstrong,
M. (2006). A handbook of Human Resource
Management Practice, (10th Ed.). London: Kogan Page Limited.
DeLord,
R., & Sanders, J. (2006, August). Police
labor-management relations (vol. I): Perspective and practical solution for
implementing change, making reforms, and handling crisis for managers and union
leaders. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services. Retrieved from
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/Publications/e07063417.pdf
Edwards,
C. (2010). Public sector unions and the rising costs of employee compensation.Cato Journal, 30(1),
87-115.
Farmer,
B. (2011). The Boston Police Strike of 1919. New American, 27(14), 36-40.
Freeman,
R. B. & Han, E. (2012). The war against public sector collective bargaining
in the US. Journal of Industrial
Relations, 54(3), 386 408.
Hall, L., Taylor, S., & Torrington, D. (2002). Human Resource Management, (5th Ed.). Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited.
Hatch,
O. (1987). U.S. Labor Law and the Future of Labor-Management Cooperation. Labor Law Journal, 38(1), 3-10.
Lewin,
D., Keefe, J. H., & Kochan, T. A. (2012). The New Great Debate about
Unionism And Collective Bargaining In U.S. State And Local Governments. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 65(4),
749-778.
Loader,
I. (1997). Policing and the Social:
Questions of Symbolic Power. British
Journal of Sociology. 48(1), 1-18.
Methé,
D. T. & Perry, J. L. (1980). The impacts of collective bargaining on local
government services: a review of research. Public
Administration Review, 40(4), 359-371.
Polzin,
M., & DeLord, R. (2006, August). Police
labor-management relations (vol. II): Perspective and practical solution for
implementing change, making reforms, and handling crisis for managers and union
leaders. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services. Retrieved from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e06064103.pdfArticles
Veatch,
K. C. (2008). The effect of collective bargaining on the use of innovative
police policy. All Volumes, (2001-2008).
Paper 14.
Analyzes the Impact of Topic # 1 on Law Enforcement
Administration.
Total: 6.25
Distinguished
– Thoroughly analyzes the impact of the chosen topic on Law Enforcement
Administration. The analysis depicts new learning by relating specific and
relevant experiences that demonstrate applicable understanding.
Proficient –
Analyzes the impact of the chosen topic on Law Enforcement Administration. The
analysis depicts new learning by relating specific and relevant experiences
that demonstrate applicable understanding. The analysis is slightly
underdeveloped.
Basic –
Minimally analyzes the impact of the chosen topic on Law Enforcement
Administration. The analysis somewhat depicts new learning by relating relevant
experiences that demonstrate applicable understanding. The analysis is
underdeveloped.
Below
Expectations – Attempts to analyzes the impact of the chosen topic on Law
Enforcement Administration; however, the analysis does not effectively address
the impact of the chosen topic and/or does not effectively demonstrate new
learning by relating experiences that demonstrate applicable understanding. The
analysis is significantly underdeveloped.
Non-Performance
– The analysis of the impact of topic # 1 on law enforcement administration is
non-existent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Analyzes the Impact of Topic # 2 on Law Enforcement
Administration.
Total: 6.25
Distinguished
– Thoroughly analyzes the impact of the chosen topic on Law Enforcement
Administration. The analysis depicts new learning by relating specific and
relevant experiences that demonstrate applicable understanding.
Proficient –
Analyzes the impact of the chosen topic on Law Enforcement Administration. The
analysis depicts new learning by relating specific and relevant experiences
that demonstrate applicable understanding. The analysis is slightly
underdeveloped.
Basic –
Minimally analyzes the impact of the chosen topic on Law Enforcement
Administration. The analysis somewhat depicts new learning by relating relevant
experiences that demonstrate applicable understanding. The analysis is
underdeveloped.
Below
Expectations – Attempts to analyzes the impact of the chosen topic on Law
Enforcement Administration; however, the analysis does not effectively address
the impact of the chosen topic and/or does not effectively demonstrate new
learning by relating experiences that demonstrate applicable understanding. The
analysis is significantly underdeveloped.
Non-Performance
– The analysis of the impact of topic # 2 on law enforcement administration is
non-existent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Analyzes the Impact of Topic # 3 on Law Enforcement
Administration.
Total: 6.25
Distinguished
– Thoroughly analyzes the impact of the chosen topic on Law Enforcement
Administration. The analysis depicts new learning by relating specific and
relevant experiences that demonstrate applicable understanding.
Proficient –
Analyzes the impact of the chosen topic on Law Enforcement Administration. The
analysis depicts new learning by relating specific and relevant experiences
that demonstrate applicable understanding. The analysis is slightly
underdeveloped.
Basic –
Minimally analyzes the impact of the chosen topic on Law Enforcement
Administration. The analysis somewhat depicts new learning by relating relevant
experiences that demonstrate applicable understanding. The analysis is
underdeveloped.
Below
Expectations – Attempts to analyzes the impact of the chosen topic on Law
Enforcement Administration; however, the analysis does not effectively address
the impact of the chosen topic and/or does not effectively demonstrate new
learning by relating experiences that demonstrate applicable understanding. The
analysis is significantly underdeveloped.
Non-Performance
– The analysis of the impact of topic # 3 on law enforcement administration is
non-existent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Critical Thinking: Evidence
Total: 1.50
Distinguished
– Employs persuasive information from credible sources to develop an ample
analysis or synthesis of the topic. Viewpoints of experts are scrutinized
thoroughly.
Proficient –
Employs applicable information from credible sources to develop an analysis of
the topic.
Basic –
Identifies applicable information from credible sources, but may neglect the
application of such information toward the analysis of the topic.
Below
Expectations – Displays information from external sources, but such information
may lack credibility and/or relevance. Neglects the application of such
information toward the analysis of the topic.
Non-Performance
– The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the
instructions.
Critical Thinking: Explanation of Issues
Total: 1.50
Distinguished
– Clearly and comprehensively explains in detail the issue to be considered,
delivering all relevant information necessary for a full understanding.
Proficient –
Clearly explains in detail the issue to be considered, delivering enough
relevant information for an adequate understanding.
Basic –
Briefly recognizes the issue to be considered, delivering minimal information
for a basic understanding.
Below
Expectations – Briefly recognizes the issue to be considered, but may not
deliver additional information necessary for a basic understanding.
Non-Performance
– The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the
instructions.
Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics
Total: 1.25
Distinguished
– Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics,
such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors, and is very easy
to understand.
Proficient –
Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as
spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors, and is
mostly easy to understand.
Basic –
Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and
grammar. Written work contains a few errors, which may slightly distract the
reader.
Below
Expectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such
as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors, which distract the
reader.
Non-Performance
– The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the
instructions.
Written Communication: APA Formatting
Total: 1.00
Distinguished
– Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page,
and reference page.
Proficient –
Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few
minor errors.
Basic –
Exhibits basic knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However,
layout does not meet all APA requirements.
Below
Expectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are
frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.
Non-Performance
– The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the
instructions.
Written Communication: Page Requirement
Total: 1.00
Distinguished
– The paper meets the specific page requirement stipulated in the assignment
description.
Proficient –
The paper closely meets the page requirement stipulated in the assignment
description.
Basic – The
paper meets over half of the page requirement stipulated in the assignment
description.
Below
Expectations – A fraction of the page requirement is completed.
Non-Performance
– The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the
instructions.
Written Commuication: Resource Requirement
Total: 1.00
Distinguished
– Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling
evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited
correctly within the body of the assignment.
Proficient –
Uses required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the
reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Basic – Uses
less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not
be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of
the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.
Below
Expectations – Uses inadequate number of sources that provide little or no
support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the
reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are
not formatted correctly.
Non-Performance
– The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the
instructions.
please look over make any changes the grading rubic is at the end
