INDUSTRY fi BUSINESS

Move to organize professionals accelerates Two new groups, SPACE and CESO, try new methods in effort to win over antiunion technologists

SPACE (Council of AFL-CIO Unions for Scientific, Professional, and Cultural Employees) was formed last year . . . Its composition: Actor's Equity Association Automobile, Aerospace and Agri­

cultural Implement Workers of America, International

National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians

Communications Workers of America International Union of Electrical,

Radio, and Machine Workers

International Brotherhood of Elec­trical Workers

International Union of Operating Engineers

Insurance Workers International Union

American Federation of Musicians American Guild of Musical Artists

Office and Professional Employees International Union

Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Han­dlers, Express and Station Em­ployees

Retail Clerks International Associa­tion

International Association of Machin­ists and Aerospace Workers

Seafarers International Union of North America

International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Pic­ture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

American Federation of Teachers American Federation of Technical

Engineers

Its Officers: President: Herman D. Kenln, presi-dent, American Federation of Musi­cians Vice president: Charles Cogen, president, American Federation of Teachers Treasurer: Jerry Wuri, president, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Executive secretary: Jack Golodner Its objectives: (1) To bring members of national and international scientific, profes­sional, and cultural unions into rela­tions of mutual assistance and co­operation. (2) To harmonize and promote the interests of members of affiliated organizations. (3) To encourage all such profes­sionals to share in full benefits, aims, and responsibilities of AFL-CIO union membership. (4) To engage in legislative activity with respect to matters of interest to the affiliated organizations con­sistent with the policies established by AFL-CIO. (5) To engage in research, publica­tions, and public relations activities appropriate to the council and con­sistent with policies of AFL-CIO. (6) To promote greater interest and participation on the part of the gen­eral public in scientific, educational, and cultural activities, and to pro­vide services to other union mem­bers and to the general public in sci­entific, educational, and cultural ac­tivities.

SPACE, constitution and policy resolutions

The struggle between unions and man­agement over the loyalties of profes­sional employees is apparently warm­ing up again after a period of relative deepfreeze beginning in 1960. The cold set in eight years ago when the Engineers and Scientists of America (ESA)—a federation of independent engineering and scientific unions-folded. Though efforts to organize professionals never ceased, the advent of the AFL-CIO's Council for Scien­tific, Professional, and Cultural Em­ployees (SPACE) early last year was the first major organizational effort directed at professionals since ESA called it cjuits.

Now, rising from the dust of their former defeat, alumni of ESA and other independent engineering unions have banded together again—this time forming the Council of Engineers and Scientists Organization (CESO).

Organized last month at a confer­ence at Bal Harbor, Fla., the new group will be structured loosely. As Henry Andreas of the Association of Scientists and Professional Engineer­ing Personnel (ASPEP) at RCA puts it, "We are concentrating on doing, not belonging." Mr. Andreas was one of the prime movers in CESO's birth.

Though the new group—which will represent about 40,000 engineers, sci­entists, and technicians—adopted a set of aims and objectives and a tenta­tive constitution in the form of rules of procedure at its kick-off meeting in Hal Harbor, Mr. Andreas emphasizes that it will continue to soft-pedal for­mal structural considerations. As yet, he notes, no plans have been made to elect officers or draw up a budget.

CESO's activities, which will in­clude lobbying, organizational aid, exchange of information, public rela­tions, and educational activities, will be strictly on an ad hoc, project basis. Collective bargaining guidelines may be formulated in the future, Mr. Andreas adds.

By de-emphasizing formal struc­ture, Mr. Andreas says, CESO hopes to avoid the petty squabbling which was ESA's undoing. ("ESA fell apart," says Hubert Emerick, United Auto Workers' assistant director of white collar organizing, "over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.") The "purity" of the com-

And the Council of Engineers and Scientists Organizations (CESO) was launched last month

Its composition: Association of Scientists and Pro­

fessional Engineering Personnel (ASPEP) at RCA

Engineers and Scientists Guild at Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

Tennessee Valley Authority Engineers Association

Westinghouse Engineers Association

Southern California Professional En­gineers Association at McDonnell-Douglas Corp. and the Southern California Gas Co.

Conference of Professional and Tech­nical Personnel at Bell Labora­tories

Engineers and Scientists of Cali­fornia at Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

24 C&EN DEC. 9. 1968

The term "professional employee" m e a n s —

(a) any employee engaged in work (I) predominantly in­tellectual and varied in character as opposed to routine mental, manual, mechanical, or physical work; (ii) in­volving the consistent exercise of discretion and judg­ment in its performance; (III) of such a character that the output . . . or result . . . cannot be standardized in

relation to a given period of time; (iv) requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction . . . in an institution of higher learning or a hospital, as distinguished from a genera/ academic education. . . .

Management Relations Act (Taft-Hartley), 1947, as amended

The professional is distinguishable from the nonprofessional because he: (a) Tends to seek new and better ways of accomplish­

ing his objectives. The nonprofessional tends to per­form his tasks in standard ways and often resists change.

(b) Recognizes the existence of degrees of competence in other, individual professional employees. The nonpro­fessional employee tends to view his fellow employees as his equal in all respects.

(c) Contributes to the improvement of his employer's

welfare by working to increase his employer's future po­tential. The nonprofessional contributes to the main­tenance of his employer's current existence.

(d) In the broadest possible sense, seeks to eliminate the necessity for his services. The nonprofessional is al­ways necessary.

Dr. Jay A. Young, Kings College, Wi/kes Barre, Pa. (C&EN, May 1, 1961, page 80)

position of member units (whether they listed technicians as well as en­gineers and scientists on their rolls), for example, was one cause of wran­gling within ESA which CESO plans to sidestep.

The newly intensified struggle to organize engineers and scientists has resulted in part from the feeling among such men as Andreas, Emerick, and SPACE'S executive secretary, Jack Golodner, that the time is ripe— that individualism is an ebbing force among professionals who see their tra­ditional privileges and prerogatives be­ing absorbed by management.

The new wave of organizing efforts also gains impetus from what union officials recognize as a changing mar­ket for the service they sell. As UAW's Walter Reuther put it in an­nouncing the Auto Workers' with­drawal from AFL-CIO, "Old centers of labor's organized strength [have] become relatively less important. As technology solves the problem of pro­duction, the relative importance of the manufacturing sector of our economy declines and that of the servicing sec­tor grows."

Department of Labor statistics bear Mr. Reuther out. They show a work force which numbered less than 5% professional, technical, and kindred workers in 1900 when Sam Gompers reigned over AFL interests. In 1966 such employees represented 12.6% of the work force. Between 1965 and 1975 Labor Department experts ex­pect professional and technical fields to exhibit a 45% growth in number of employees, from 8.9 million to 12.9 million. By 1975 half of all workers may be "white collar" (professional, clerical, and sales as defined by La­bor).

Though these numbers can and have helped union officials define the territory where they feel they should increase their organizing efforts, the

strategy for winning the management-union battle is clouded by at least four important questions:

• What is a professional? • What can unions give professionals

that management can't or doesn't? • Is management giving all it can

or should? • Where do groups of professionals

such as the American Chemical Soci­ety fit into the picture?

Congress and others (see box) have taken stabs at defining "professional," but in practice the term still causes problems, both for unions and for tech­nical people among their peers.

For example, of 12,450 members that the National Society for Profes­sional Engineers lists for the AFL-CIO's American Federation of Tech­nical Engineers, only 1000 are con­sidered professionals by NSPE. The stigma of being a "technical" versus a "professional" union has so plagued AFTE's organizing efforts that it voted at a recent convention to change its

TWO VIEWS. ACS's Joseph Stewart (left) and SPACE'S Jack Golodner dis­agree on unions' value to chemists

name to the American Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. In this regard, SPACE may find that inclusion of some of its member groups (see box) works to its disadvantage in organizing status-conscious scientists and engineers.

Dr. Jay A. Young of Kings College, Wilkes Barre, Pa., has attempted to define professionalism and, by doing so, point out that unionism is unde­sirable for the professional chemist (see box). But, he also contends that professionalism among chemists is probably not what it should be. He concludes this from asking: How many members attend local section meetings? How many have re­sponded to the ACS program for con­tinuing education? Of those who do respond, how many do so at their own expense? Who participates in com­mittee meetings at the national level?

From the answers to these ques­tions, Dr. Young estimates that some­thing less than 50% of total ACS mem­bership is truly professional in outlook.

Even if it's conceded that half of all chemists (and perhaps other sci­entists and engineers) are less than rigorously professional in pursuing their careers, the unions still face an uphill struggle. For this laxity in honing their skills does not prevent scientific personnel from evincing a strong antiunion bias. Thus, John W. Riegal of the University of Michigan's Bureau of Industrial Relations found in a survey of 264 unorganized engi­neers and scientists (including chem­ists, physicians, physicists, and math­ematicians) from 10 companies (four were chemical companies, all 10 were "well-established and well-managed") that only 13 strongly favored collective bargaining for professionals like them­selves. Seven were mildly in favor of such action while 131 strongly op­posed it and 61 viewed such a course with mild disfavor. The remaining

DEC. 9, 1968 C&EN 25

52 scientists and engineers expressed mixed feelings.

On the other hand, antiunion senti­ment does not necessarily imply that those who manage professionals have any reason to feel complacent. On the contrary, the University of Michi­gan's George S. Odiorne says that "The

widespread autocracy of top manage­ment and petulant handling of profes­sionals today is a strong breeding ground for unionization."

Dr. Odiorne, who teaches in Michi­gan's graduate school of business ad­ministration and serves as a consultant to several technical companies, adds

White collar organizing has grown—but slowly

Year

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968" TOTAL

Total election

395

462

443

471

514

579

868

416

4,148

Elections won

177 273 255 268 318 352 567 235

2,445

People unionized

4,660 5,880 6,495 6,730 7,600 9,085

15,090 5,450

60,990

Elections lost

218 189 188 203 196 227 301 181

1,703

People continuing

as nonunion

6,845 8,460

15,250 9,225

10,125 9,990

11,940 7,570

79,405

Total AFL-CIO

member­ship

(thousands)

14,572

14,835

14,818

15,150

15,604

16,198

a Figures for first half of 1968 only Source: White Collar Report and National Labor Relations Board

Unions represent engineers, scientists, and other technical employees at these companies

Total Number personnel Number of profes-

repre- of union sional sented members employees Employer

Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. West Allis, Wis.

American Bosch Arma Brooklyn, N.Y. American Oil Co. Whiting, Ind. Boeing Airplane Co.; Continental Can

Co. Seattle, Wash. Boeing Airplane Co. Wichita, Kan. Douglas Aircraft Corp. (four locations) General Dynamics San Diego, Calif. Great Northern; Chicago Northwest Chicago, St. Paul, Minn.,

and Omaha International Harvester Fort Wayne, Ind. MIT Laboratories Nutley, N.J. Leeds & Northrop Co. Philadelphia, Pa. Lockheed Companies (three locations) Los Angeles, City and County, and

Dept. of Water & Power Radio Corp. of America Camden, N.J. Shell Development Co. Emeryville, Calif. Various employees represented by

American Federation of Technical Engineers (AFL-CIO) Various employees represented by

Technical Engineers Ass.

800 N.A. N.A.

415

400

7,300

1,000

5,562

600

350

283

440

140

3,850

1,800

1,600

390

12,450

415

340

2,800

400

1,300

120

250

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

1,800

1,400

1,200

330

12,450

N.A.

N.A.

7,838

1,350

4,506

600

230

283

340

140

3,030

1,100

1,600

390

1,000

807 807 N.A.

N.A. Not available Note: Compiled November 1966 from numerous official and public sources by the Na­tional Society of Professional Engineers. The listing, NSPE says, is as complete as pos­sible, but is generally limited to unions which predominantly represent engineers and sci­entists. Because of the use of many information sources, numbers may not always be consistent for each company.

that this alleged mishandling of pro­fessionals is especially acute in tech­nologically oriented companies.

"The typical fellow," he says, "is a scientist or engineer by inclination, discipline, and training. In his first supervisory position, and sometimes all the way up, he thinks of himself as a scientist, not a manager. He doesn't have the will to manage."

He adds that a continuation of the relatively slow growth of the research community could alter the presently highly favorable supply-demand posi­tion of U.S. technologists and drive them pell-mell toward unionism.

The findings of Opinion Research Corp.—a Princeton, N.J., market, at­titude, and motivation research com­pany—though cloaked in the vagueness necessary to maintain anonymity, tend to support Dr. Odiorne's thesis. Opinion Research says it has studied the attitudes of scientists and engineers toward their jobs, companies, and ca­reers for more than two decades and finds such employees to be "highly dissatisfied" with their lot.

Joseph Stewart, former head of the ACS Committee on Professional Re­lations, says that older, topped-out employees are especially disgruntled. Some scientists and engineers in this group, he states, have lost mobility, reached a salary plateau, and want someone to do something for them. These are the people who tend to become prounion.

"Younger people do not wish to join unions," Mr. Stewart says. "They look upon themselves as management or as potentially management. They have the feeling that unionism, what­ever that may mean, is not consistent with professionalism, whatever that may mean."

Jack Golodner, a Yale law school graduate now serving as executive secretary of SPACE, agrees with ACS's Stewart. And he thinks he knows at least one reason for young people's attitudes being what they are.

"Textbooks throughout all the school years," he says, "are antilabor." Even labor heros like Gompers and Lewis, he notes, seem common and grubby in contrast to most other historical figures. SPACE, as a result, is em­phasizing the importance of a more favorable union historical background for students.

Golodner also admits that SPACE is giving serious thought to the pos­sibility of working through student groups to help inculcate, at the college level, the habit of participation in union-style organizations.

These plans are still in the forma­tive stage, however, as are most of SPACE'S. For example, Golodner says advisory committees or boards are due to be set up to help provide expert,

26 C&EN DEC. 9, 1968

inside information on what kind of appeal is necessary to win over scien­tists and engineers. These commit­tees, Golodner adds, might even evolve into something more than advisory groups and eventually assume some kind of direct control over specific areas of organizing.

Joe Stewart is thoroughly familiar with the loss of individual freedom which unionization has traditionally caused or aggravated. But when Jack Golodner is confronted with these problems—rigid conformity, strict grievance machinery and seniority rules, strikes, overtime regulations, and union discipline—he simply says that every union makes its own contract with its own provisions. Actor's Eq­uity, he notes, has dealt in its own way with wage, seniority, and overtime issues. As long as, he says, collective bargaining is used as a means of set­tling management/employee problems, you have a union. The National Ed­ucation Association, for example, is a union by Mr. Golodner's lights.

If ΝΕΑ and SPACE are typical, what is happening is a converging of the functions of professional societies and labor unions. It will take time, though, to alter the labor movement's image. As ACS's Stewart points out, the concept of unionism generates deep emotions. "People," he says, "are either prounion or antiunion without really understanding the detail of what they're talking about."

But despite this basic, antiunion bias on the part of many professionals, Jack Golodner is optimistic about his union's future. "The delusion," he says, "that what is right for the em­ployer is right for the profession is crumbling." Dual technical/adminis­trative promotional ladders, paid sab­baticals to return to school, royalties on patents and copyrights, and a greater voice in decision making are all aspects of the professional/technical man's working life that Mr. Golodner believes will become the subjects of collective bargaining.

Certainly the phoenixlike union movement among engineers as re­flected by ESA/CESO seems to indi­cate that the urge to organize is alive and kicking. Ultimately the question for chemists may well be the one Joe Stewart framed for C&EN: "The question," he says, "that ACS members are going to have to look at is, forget­ting the emotional implications and the semantics, do they want to convert or encourage other people to convert ACS into a society which can attain some of the objectives for which unions have traditionally strived, or into an organization which uses the methods that have generally characterized un­ions as they have forced their way toward their goals."

When you use TLC the idea is to separate something. We keep this constantly and clearly in view. It's what Quanta/Gram* pre-coated glass plates are all about. We're a lot less concerned with whether the backer should be glass, plastic, foil or chocolate bars than with which substrate lets us give you the best separations and reproducibility possible at the present state of the art. In a word, the idea was and is Reproducible Resolution. Reproducible Resolution. For example. We control adsorbent deposition electronically because we can thus control layer thickness of every plate to within ± 4%: a sine qua non if you're serious about reproducibility. With Quanta/Gram* the compound is the variable not the plate. And, with Quanta/Gram* there's more to reproduce: better separations in any RF region and lots better separations in some. Resolution, in short. Resolution depends upon many factors: adsorbent, particle size, layer thickness, substrate, solvent system, to name a few. All, in Quanta/Gram*, very close indeed to the state of the art. Apartness. The Quanta/Gram* pre-coated TLC plate is intended to give you Reproducible Resolution: the best resolution, as exactly reproducible as is presently possible. It's as close as we can come, just now, to selling separations. For complete data and/or samples of Quanta/Gram* plates, please write or phone. Obligation ours.

22-5 DeForest Avenue Hanover, New Jersey 07936 (201)887-1031

\

KJ

ι ! Ο i l nu f i (fn (F% (f% Λ 11 Α ι l l l O l l i l i l i i l I 11 r S S

cnuamtiunn îr^idi_jstr^ï^^