Union membership for government employees has almost as varied a background as there are kinds of jobs in the public service. Civil Service Assembly, in the latest issue of its quarterly, "Public Personnel Review," publishes an article by Rollin B. Posey of Northwestern University describing employee organization in the U.S. and predicting problems of the future.

According to Prof. Posey, the so-called craft unions in the federal service, such as those for letter-carriers and in the customs and immigration services, have tried to get complete unionization and have, for the most part, succeeded. In spite of duplication and competition among themselves, they have been able to establish a going-wage basis for setting rates. Federal wage boards tend to match rates with those prevailing in private industry.

Craft workers at the state and local levels of government are also largely successful in their efforts to get their union pay scales incorporated into the pay schedules of employing governments. Prof.

Posey believes that the variety of unions found among state and local government employees is not as disadvantageous to them as the welter of unions found in the federal service. Dual unionism exists, he says, but on a far less competitive basis.

Strikes, the most potent weapon of unions in private industry, are generally condemned by organized workers in public service, as well as by many local and federal laws. The last section of the Taft-Hartley Act forbids federal employees to strike. The National Federation of Federal Employees has an anti-strike provision in its constitution.

Strikes of government workers do happen, however, even in states that have legislated against them. Prof. Posey feels that just as laws do not stop crime, so anti-strike laws will not stop strikes. The control should lie in preventing causes of strikes. He points out that no strike of government employees has ever come from a breakdown in collective bargaining.

Possible future problems he sees stemming from the following causes: 1) making terms and conditions of employment the subject of negotiations between the employing government and a union; 2) negotiating wage rates, thus depriving legislative bodies of the right to set wages; and 3) disagreement over the propriety of government unions affiliating with the A.F. of L.-C.I.O. This last point is apt to be crucial. To government unionists, affiliation will be greatly desirable; to those concerned about impartiality in public service, it will be undesirable.