Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The office and professional employees international union: From “union company union” to independent representative

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Labor Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Joseph E. Finley,White Collar Union: The Story of the OPEIU and Its People (New York: Octagon Books, 1975), pp. 4–16, 64–69.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ibid., p. 90. The constitution committee of the OEIU opted for the spelling of “employe” (rather than “employee”) in the new organization’s title. In 1965, however, when “Professional” was added to the union’s name, a second “e” was adopted in the spelling of “employee.”

    Google Scholar 

  3. The UOPWA was expelled from the CIO in 1950 because of Communist ties and soon disintegrated. For background on the UOPWA, see David J. Saposs,Communism in American Unions (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959); Max M. Kampelman,The Communist Party vs. the CIO (New York: Arno and the New York Times, 1971), esp. pp. 96–100, 167, 169; and Walter Galenson,The CIO Challenge to the AFL (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960), p. 60.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Finley,White Collar Union, p. 36.

  5. Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU),Proceedings, 16th Triennial Convention (June 6–9, 1983), pp. 185–90, 146, 236.

  6. Finley,White Collar Union, pp. 100, 104, 157.

  7. Ibid., p. 154.

  8. Ibid., pp. 180–81.

  9. Geoffrey W. Latta, “Union Organization Among Engineers: A Current Assessment,”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 35 (October 1981): 29–42; various issues ofWhite Collar Report. See also Herbert R. Northrup and Margot E. Malin,Personnel Policies for Engineers and Scientists: An Analysis of Major Corporate Practice (Philadelphia: Industrial Research Unit, the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania), pp. 289–304, for an analysis of attitudes toward unionism on the part of technical professionals.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. White Collar Report, no. 788 (April 21, 1972), p. A-4; no. 1061 (August 19, 1977), p. A-13; no. 1305 (May 28, 1982), p. A-17; and various issues ofWhite Collar and OPEIU newsletter.

  11. Daily Labor Report, no. 29 (February 13, 1984), pp. A-2-3;White Collar Report 56 (August 15, 1984), p. 204; and John Kelly, “Executive Board Report,”White Collar, January–March 1984, p. 8.

  12. OPEIU,Convention Proceedings, 1971 and 1983; and Courtney D. Gifford,Directory of U.S. Labor Organizations: 1984–85 Edition (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1984). In contrast, only approximately 12.6 percent of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) members, 12.2 percent of Teamsters, and 10 percent of the Service Employees’ International Union (SEIU) members are Canadian; prior to Canadian secession from the UAW and the United Paper-workers, approximately 10 percent and 7 percent of members, respectively, were Canadian.

  13. “OPEIU Convention Pledges New Emphasis on Organizing,”White Collar Report 53 (June 10, 1983).

  14. “OPEIU Convention Reelects Officers, Stresses Organizing, Political Action,”White Collar Report 59 (June 18, 1986), p. 618.

  15. OPEIU,16th Convention Proceedings, 1983, pp. 185–90.

  16. LM-2 reports filed with the U.S. Department of Labor by the Teamsters (reporting period: January 1, 1985, to December 31, 1985), the OPEIU (reporting period: March 1, 1985, to February 28, 1986), the UFCW (reporting period: May 1, 1984, to April 30, 1985), and the SEIU (reporting period: January 1, 1985, to December 31, 1985).

  17. OPEIU,16th Convention Proceedings, 1983, p. 107.

  18. LM-2 reports filed by the OPEIU, the UFCW, and the Teamsters; and OPEIU,16th Convention Proceedings, 1983. From January through September 1984, the OPEIU’s minimum monthly per capita payment was $2.37 and the maximum $3.72, compared with the Teamsters’ 1984 monthly rate of $3.90 and the UFCW’s 1984 minimum of $5.20 and maximum of $5.79. As of October 1, 1984, however, the OPEIU raised its minimum to $2.52 and its maximum to $4.12.

  19. “OPEIU Convention Reelects Officers,” p. 619.

  20. LM-2 report filed by the OPEIU (reporting period: March 1, 1984, to February 29, 1985).

  21. OPEIU,15th Convention Proceedings, 1980, p. 14. For an analysis of government grants to unions, see James T. Bennett and Thomas J. DiLorenzo, “Tax Funded Unionism: The Unemployment Connection,”Journal of Labor Research 7 (Fall 1986): 363–86.

    Google Scholar 

  22. LM-2 reports filed by the OPEIU (various reporting years).

  23. OPEIU,16th Convention Proceedings, 1983, p. 134; telephone conversation with Mark Reader, OPEIU director of organizing, November 15, 1983; “OPEIU Convention Pledges New Emphasis on Organizing,”White Collar Report 53 (June 10, 1983): 559; and LM-2 reports filed by the OPEIU (various reporting years). In a November 1983 interview, Reader indicated that the OPEIU international had 30 organizers and planned to increase that number to 45. The OPEIU’s 1982–1983 LM-2 report, however, shows only 16 international representatives on its employee schedule; the 1984–1985 LM-2 report indicates only 17 such representatives in addition to the director and deputy director of organizing.

  24. OPEIU,President’s Report, Convention, June 1986, Montreal, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  25. OPEIU,Secretary-Treasurer’s Report, Convention, June 1986, Montreal, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See above, p. 5.

  27. In 1968, an assistant counsel on the staff of the Steelworkers, who was also vice-president of its Local 3657, the in-house union representative, startled the union hierarchy not only by running for president of the international against incumbent I. W. Abel, but by winning 41.3 percent of the rank and file vote in the referendum election. One year later, this local and the international were locked in a bitter dispute over job evaluation, exclusion of supervisors in the bargaining unit, and other issues. See David I. Shair, “Labor Organizations as Employers: ‘Unions — Within Unions,’”Journal of Business 43 (July 1970): 296–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shair, “Labor Organizations,” pp. 297–98.

  29. See, for example, “Striking Office Workers at UAW Vote Return, Get Compromise Boost,”Wall Street Journal, April 5, 1971, p. 14; “Office Workers Strike at UAW and Machinists Headquarters in Contract Negotiation Dispute,”Daily Labor Report, no. 52, March 3, 1971; and Victor Riesel, “Picketing Peoples’ Protector: Big Union Struck by Its Own Employees to Prevent Slash in Benefits,” mimeographed release of syndicated “Inside Labor” column, January 11, 1978.

  30. Victor Riesel, “National Iron Workers Chief Tries to Break White Collar Strike Against His Own Hdq.,” mimeographed release of syndicated “Inside Labor” column, May 22, 1979.

  31. See, for example, United Brotherhood of Carpenters Local 1780, 244 N.L.R.B. 277 (1979); Teamsters Local Union No. 574, 259 N.L.R.B. 344 (1981); District No. 1, Pacific Coast Association, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, 259 N.L.R.B. 1258 (1982); Professional Air Traffic Controllers Association, 261 N.L.R.B. 922 (1982); and Truckdrivers’ Local No. 164, IBT, 267 N.L.R.B. 8 (1983).

  32. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, 120 N.L.R.B. 969 (1958); International Ladies Garment Workers Union, 142 N.L.R.B. 82 (1962);enforced in part, 339 F. 2d 126 (2d Cir. 1964). Actually, the case against union representation by these groups of employees is, unlike that for office employees, not one just demanding special privilege. Many such employees, for example, are either political or confidential employees. In periods of declining membership, such as the period since 1981, unions have been forced to lay off organizers. Doing so under strict seniority provisions has deprived them of the younger, more aggressive organizers and has exacerbated their problems. On this issue, see Gordon F. Bloom and Herbert R. Northrup,Economics of Labor Relations, 9th ed. (Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, 1981), pp. 88–89, and Shair, “Labor Organizations,” pp. 301–04.

  33. Air Line Pilots Association, 97 N.L.R.B. 921 (1951).

  34. Teamsters Building, Portland, Oregon, 113 N.L.R.B. 987 (1955).

  35. Four years after this NLRB decision and three years following its affirmance by the D.C. Circuit Court, Congress enacted the Labor and Management Reporting and Disclosure (Landrum-Griffin) Act regulating the conduct of union officials and the rules and regulations of unions.

  36. Office Employees International Union, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 235 F.2d 832 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

  37. Office Employees International Union, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 353 U.S. 313 (1957). See also Shair, “Labor Organizations,” pp. 304–06; and Comment, “NLRB Cannot Refuse Jurisdiction Over Labor Unions Acting as Employer,”Columbia Law Review 57 (November 1957): 1029–31.

    Google Scholar 

  38. “AFGE: Membership, Money, and Political Clout Dwindling,”The Government Union Critique 5 (May 20, 1983): 1–3; and James Crawford, “How Federal Unions Spent Dues Money,”Federal Times, September 26, 1983, pp. 1, 24. The second article reproduces data filed in LM-2 forms with the U.S. Department of Labor. Citations to the Washington, D.C., press are based on the weeklyClipbook of the Public Service Research Council, which reproduces them. Page numbers are not usually included in the reproduced copies.

  39. James Crawford, “AFGE, Staff Unions at Impasse,”Federal Times, October 8, 1983; idem, “AFGE Faces Possible Strike in Deadlock with Staff Union,”Federal Times, October 31, 1983; and “Staff of Government Employees Union Threatens Strike Over Non-Economic Issues,”White Collar Report 54 (November 9, 1983): 422–23.

    Google Scholar 

  40. “AFGE Employees on Strike,”The Government Union Critique 6 (November 18, 1983): 1–2; and “AFGE’s Clerical, Professional Employees Strike Union’s Offices,”White Collar Report, Vol. 54 (November 16, 1983), pp. 439–40.

  41. “AFGE to Impose Contract on Strikers,”The Government Union Critique 6 (December 30, 1983): 1–2; James Crawford, “AFGE Takes First Step to End Strike,”Federal Times, January 2, 1984, pp. 1, 22.

  42. James Crawford, “AFGE Staff Returns to Work,”Federal Times, January 30, 1984, pp. 1, 12; and “AFGE, OPEIU Local 2 in Washington, D.C., End 9-week Strike With 39-Month Contract,”White Collar Report 55 (January 18, 1984): 68–69.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See Crawford, “AFGE Staff, Unions at Impasse,” and “AFGE Faces Possible Strike.”

  44. “Firing Affirmed,”Federal Times, June 25, 1984.

  45. “AFGE Delegates Reelect Blaylock, Vote Down Reorganization Plans,”Government Union Critique 8 (August 22, 1986): 6; Mike Causey, “The Federal Diary, AFGE Restructuring Bid,”Washington Post, August 12, 1986; and idem, “The Federal Diary, AFGE Reelects Blaylock,”Washington Post, August 15, 1986.

  46. American Federation of Government Employees, 278 N.L.R.B. No. 55 (January 31, 1986).

  47. Blaylock apparently does not see any contradiction between his positions on contracting out as a union manager and as a union advocate. Thus, he wrote in 1984 in response to a proposed bill (S-1746) that would have liberalized contracting-out rules in the federal government: “As far as I am concerned, that irresponsible statement [by proponents of more contracting out] must serve to warn federal employees that some factions in Congress will stop at nothing to not only destroy the reputation of the federal workforce, but to clear the way for their contractor backers to take over all our jobs.” This is, of course, the same fear which the members of Local 2 expressed to Blaylock during their strike. See “Federal Unions Gear Up Against Contracting Out,”Government Union Critique 6 (March 9, 1984): 5.

  48. During this period, the Communication Workers of America lost four elections (three in Alabama) and won none, the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks (now the Transportation Communication Union) and the UFCW (including one of its predecessor organizations, the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen) both lost two elections and won none, the Teamsters, besides gaining bargaining rights in Chicago, lost three elections including an earlier one in Chicago and were also decertified in a previously won small unit, the UAW lost three small units in Michigan besides winning major ones there and the Retail Wholesale, and Department Store Union and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers each lost one election without winning any.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Pennsylvania, 19104, Philadelphia, PA

    Herbert R. Northrup

  2. Seton Hall University, 07079, South Orange, NJ

    Theresa Diss Greis

  3. University of Pennsylvania, 19104, Philadelphia, PA

    Kay M. Dowgun

Authors
  1. Herbert R. Northrup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theresa Diss Greis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kay M. Dowgun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This study was developed as part of the Wharton Industrial Research Unit’s ongoing financial human resources research project, sponsored by the Unit’s Financial Employee Relations Study Group. The authors are grateful to the Public Service Research Council for supplying copies of their weekly “Clipbook” containing news articles of major interest for this article and to Ms. Sue A. Torelli, the Industrial Research Unit’s librarian, for research assistance and data checking.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Northrup, H.R., Greis, T.D. & Dowgun, K.M. The office and professional employees international union: From “union company union” to independent representative. Journal of Labor Research 9, 91–106 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685232

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685232

Keywords

Search

Navigation