Kristian Williams - Our Enemies in Blue - Police and Power in America

This strategy worked to neutralize rank-and-file organizing throughout the1930s, restricting their activity to the lobbying tactics of the early PBAs.19 Butin the 1940s, unionization was again on the agenda, and by 1944 the AFL hadpolice unions in 168 cities.20 In the name of preserving their neutrality, policedepartments generally responded to this new wave of organizing in the sameway they had before--barring the organizations and firing union supporters.21In the 1950s, after the NYPD defeated a Transport Worker's Union drive byoffering the officers concessions,22 Commissioner George Monaghan establishedRule 225: "No member of the police force of the city of New York shall become amember of any labor union." He reasoned that the rule was necessaryto protect the policemen from influences or commitments which mightimpair their ability to perform their duties impartially and without fear orfavor, or might tend to weaken or undermine the discipline and authorityto which they must necessarily be subjected.23Appeals to the "neutrality" of the police are questionable, given their historical useagainst strikes and unions. Monaghan's second reason probably comes closer tothe truth: unionization was seen as a threat to the authority of police commanders.Whatever the justification, restrictions against unionization proved ineffectual,and some commanders were forced to try other approaches in order to preservetheir control. In 1941, the AFL supported an FOP organizing drive in the1 )etroit Police Department. The department harassed officers who supportedthe drive, fired its leaders, and procured court orders barring unionization, buthalf of the patrolmen joined the organization anyway. The next year, however,the FOP lost ground when the Detroit Police Officers Association (DPOA) wasformed with the backing of police commanders?4 Carl Parsell, who served as theDPOA president in the late sixties, explained: "It started out basically a companyunion under their guidance, under their control. They gave you the rights attheir pleasure."251bings took a different turn in New York, though a similar strategy wasin evidence. The PBA sued to protect itself from Rule 225, and won. The courtfound that the department could bar "organizations of policemen affiliated withnonpolice labor associations or officered by non-policemen," but could notinterfere with the PBA's activities.26The distinction became relevant in 1 une 1958, when the Teamsters publiclyannounced an effort to unionize the police. The announcement put pressure onthe PBA leadership to produce results,27 and it also gave police managers anincentive to cooperate with the PBA rather than face the stronger muscle of theTeamsters. AJournal-American editorial suggested:The surest way of slapping down Hoffa would be for Mayor Wagner, CommissionerKennedy, and the representatives of the Patrolmen's BenevolentAssociation to begin exploring methods by which such grievance machinerywould be set up with proper safeguards all around.281IDs is, more or less, what occurred. After the Teamsters' drive was defeated, PBApresident lohn Cassese set about winning gains for his organization's members.By 1961, lobbying, lawsuits, and job actions (including ticket speed-ups andslow-downs) had won the PBA a dues check-off, protections against manage-123