1. AN ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENCE IN ANTAGONISM LEVELS
BETWEEN THREE TEXAS CITIES THAT HAVE ADOPTED CHAPTER
143 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND THREE CITIES WHICH
HAVE NOT ADOPTED CHAPTER 143
By Dindy Robinson
April 29, 2003

2. Acknowledgements
Janet Goad, Dave Foreman, Libby
Lanzara, Jeanette Blankenship, Mary
Ann Fulgium, Jose Moreno, Wynona
Gulley, Cameron Gulley, Shelly Garcia,
Carol Eicher, Kathy Malone, Bonnie
Hodges, Sally McCoy, Lois Chandler
and Dr. Guisette Salazar

3. Hypothesis: The relationship
between General Employees
and Police Officers and
Firefighters is more
adversarial in Chapter 143
cities than in non-143 cities

4. Chapter 143
• The section of the Local Government Code for the state of
Texas that establishes policies and procedures for a Civil
Service System for police departments or fire departments
• Is a set of laws regarding salary, raises, hiring procedures,
grievance procedures; leave time and other employment issues
• Sets rules for the selection, promotion, discipline, leave policies
and compensation for Police Officers and Firefighters
• Can create a two-tiered compensation system where the
employees who are governed under Chapter 143 receive
different leave benefits or have a different compensation system
than the general employees who are not covered under Chapter
143

5. Ex: Fort Worth
Police and firefighters’ raises are
based on tenure while other
employees’ raises are based on
performance. Occasional market
adjustment raises are given to
both groups.

6. Methodology
• Two surveys: one for Public Safety (Police &
Fire) one for General Employees
• Hand delivered to 20 Public Safety and 20
General Employees within six selected cities
• Self addressed stamped envelope was
stapled to each survey to enable employees
to return the surveys anonymously via first
class mail.

7. Participating Cities
Chapter 143
• Fort Worth
• Mesquite
• Carrollton
Non-Chapter 143
• Cleburne
• Rowlett
• W*
*City requested to be
identified by initial
only.

8. Scoring: Difference of
Treatment

9. Part 1: For each question, please put an “X” beside the statement with which you
agree the most.
1. PAY
General employees in this city are paid fairly compared to pay for police
officers and firefighters. (Score = 0)
General employees in this city are paid less than police officers and
firefighters. (Score = 5)
General employees in this city are paid better than police officers and
firefighters. (Score = 5)
2. Leave Benefits
General employees in this city have better leave benefits than police officers
and firefighters. (Score = 5)
General employees in this city have worse leave benefits than police officers
and firefighters. (Score = 5)
General employees in this city have the same leave benefits as police
officers and firefighters. (Score = 0)

10. 3. Benefits
General employees in this city have the same benefits package as
police officers and firefighters. (Score = 0)
General employees in this city have a better benefits package than
police officers and firefighters. (Score = 5)
General employees in this city have a worse benefits package
than police officers and firefighters. (Score = 5)
4. Discipline
General employees in this city are treated the same as police
officers and firefighters when it comes to discipline. (Score = 0)
General employees in this city are treated better than police
officers and firefighters when it comes to discipline. (Score = 5)
General employees in this city are treated worse than police
officers and firefighters when it comes to discipline. (Score = 5)

11. •If the respondent indicated any difference in
treatment between the two groups, no matter
which group was favored by the difference, a
value of 5 (five) points was given for the
question.
•If the respondent indicated no difference in
treatment between the two groups, a value of
0 (zero) points was assigned.
•All of the values for the first four questions
were totaled to achieve the “Difference of
Treatment Score.”

12. Level of Antagonism

13. 5. The relationship between police officers, firefighters and general employees is
very good.
5 points 3 points 0 points -3 points -5 points
Strongly disagree slightly disagree neutral slightly agree strongly agree
6. Police officers, firefighters and general employees in this city work well together
when compensation issues are being determined.
5 points 3 points 0 points - 3 points -5 points
Strongly disagree slightly disagree neutral slightly agree strongly agree
7. Police officers and firefighters in this city often try to get additional compensation at
the expense of the general employees.
0 points 0 points 0 points 3 points 5 point
Strongly disagree slightly disagree neutral slightly agree strongly agree

14. 8. General employees in this city often try to get additional compensation at the
expense of the police officers and firefighters.
0 points 0 points 0 points 3 points 5 points
Strongly disagree slightly disagree neutral slightly agree strongly agree
9. There is an adversarial relationship between police officers, firefighters and
general employees in this city.
-5 points -3 points 0 points 3 points 5 points
Strongly disagree slightly disagree neutral slightly agree strongly agree

15. Demographic information for
age, tenure, gender, ethnicity
and employee type (general or
Civil Service) was also noted for
each survey, as were the
respondent’s Chapter 143 status
and the size of the respondent’s
city.

16. Survey responses were keyed into
an Excel database and transferred to
NCSS. Correlation studies including
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient,
Analyses of Variance, Regression
Correlation, and Chi-Square
Analyses were conducted to
determine relationships and causal
factors.

17. Data Overview
• 189 surveys returned for a return rate of 78.8%
• 96 surveys (80%) returned from Chapter 143 cities
• 93 surveys (77.5%) returned from non-Chapter 143
cities
• 87 surveys (72.5%) returned from Public Safety
Employees
• 102 surveys (85%) returned from General Employees
• 78 surveys (41.3%) from women
• 93 surveys (49.2%) from men

18. City Chapter
143
Police/Fire % General % Total %
Carrollton Yes 5 25% 12 60% 17 42.5%
Fort Worth Yes 15 75% 33 165% 48 120%
Mesquite Yes 9 45% 22 110% 31 77.5%
Rowlett No 19 95% 15 75% 34 85%
W[1] No 31 155% 13 65% 44 110%
Cleburne No 8 40% 7 35% 15 37.5%
[1] One participating City asked to be identified only by its initial.

19. Return by City
Surveys Returned
5
15
9
19
31
8
12
33
22
15
13
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Carrollton
Fort
Worth
Mesquite
Rowlett
W[1]
Cleburne
city
number
General
Police/Fire

20. More Data
• Age of respondents ranged from 20 to
77
• Length of employee tenure ranged from
0 to 33 years

21. Ethnicity
Ethnicity #
Respondents
Percentage
Caucasian 139 73.5%
Hispanic 25 13.2%
African
American
6 3.2%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
6 3.2%
Native
American
2 1.1%

22. # Respondents
79%
14%
3%
3%
1%
Caucasian
Hispanic
African American
Asian/Pacific Islander
Native American

23. Pearson’s Correlation Matrix
Factor Correlation
Coefficient
143 status and Difference of
Treatment
0.54
143 status and difference in
leave policies
0.51
143 status and difference in
benefits
0.40
143 status and level of
antagonism
0.42
Level of antagonism and
difference in treatment
0.45
Employee type and level of pay 0.44

24. Chapter 143 Analysis of Variance
Factor F-ratio Finding
Level of
Antagonism
33.60 Level of Antagonism is
greater in 143 than in
non-143
Difference in
Treatment
64.80 Difference in treatment
greater in 143 cities
Level of
Antagonism
and Perception
of Treatment
71.51 Level of Antagonism
higher among employees
who perceive difference in
level of treatment
Chapter 143 Analysis of Variance

25. Difference of Treatment by City Status
Treatment
6
17
23
30
20
23
41
20
8
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 5 10 15 20
Degree of difference
#
of
responses
Chapter 143
Non Chapter 143

26. The relationship between police officers, firefighters
and general employees is very good.
10
16
19
34
17
4
10
6
31
41
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
strongly
disagree
disagree neutral agree strongly
agree
Chapter 143
Non Chapter 143

27. General Employees in this city often try to get additional
compensation at the expense of the police officers and
firefighters.
50
24
17
2 3
31
18
30
9
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
strongly
disagree
disagree neutral agree strongly
agree
Chapter 143
Non Chapter 143

28. Police Officers and Firefighters in this city often try
to get additional compensation at the expense of
the general employees.
22
9 11
28 26
47
17
23
3 3
0
10
20
30
40
50
strongly
disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly
agree
Chapter 143
Non Chapter 143

29. There is an adversarial relationship between police officers,
firefighters and general employees in this city.
19
16
24
29
8
38
14
26
14
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
strongly
disagree
disagree neutral agree strongly
agree
Chapter 143
Non Chapter 143

30. Analysis of Variance by Employee Type
Factor F-ratio Finding
Level of
Antagonism
18.93 General Employees
likely to see higher
level of antagonism
Difference of
Treatment
13.48 General Employees
more likely to see
difference in treatment

31. Perception of Difference in Treatment by General and
Police/Fire Employees
7
31
23 24
16
22
27
20
14
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 5 10 15 20
Difference in treatment
Number
General
Police/Fire

32. The relationship between police officers, firefighters
and general employees is very good.
10
16 16
30 29
5
10 9
35
29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
strongly
disagree
disagree neutral agree strongly
agree
General
Police/Fire

33. Police officers, firefighters and general employees in
this city work well together when compensation issues
are being determined.
21 22
33
14
8
9
16
31
25
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
strongly
disagree
disagree neutral agree strongly
agree
General
Police/Fire

34. Police officers and firefighters in this city often try to get
additional compensation at the expense of the general
employees.
20
9
19
25 28
49
17 15
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
strongly
disagree
disagree neutral agree strongly
agree
General
Police/Fire

35. General employees in this city often try to get additional
compensation at the expense of the police officers and firefighters.
52
25
17
5
2
29
17
30
6 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
strongly
disagree
disagree neutral agree strongly
agree
General
Police/Fire

36. There is an adversarial relationship between police
officers, firefighters and general employees in this city.
24
11
28 29
8
33
19 22
14
0
0
10
20
30
40
strongly
disagree
disagree neutral agree strongly
agree
General
Police/Fire

37. Analysis of Variance for Gender
Factor F-ratio Finding
Level of
Antagonism
2.77 No difference
between males and
females
Difference in
Treatment
3.63 No difference
between males and
females

38. Analysis of Variance by Ethnic Group
Factor F-ratio Finding
Level of
Antagonism
0.47 No difference among
ethnic groups
Difference of
Treatment
1.08 No difference among
ethnic groups

39. Tenure and Age
• No significant correlation between
length of tenure and level of antagonism
• No significant difference between age
and level of antagonism

40. Conclusion
• A city’s 143 status has a direct correlation to
an adversarial relationship between public
safety employees and general employees
• One reason may be perceived disparity in
treatment between the two groups
• Slight correlation between type of employee
and level of antagonism
• General employees slightly more likely than
Public Safety employees to report
antagonism between the two groups
• Gender, age, tenure and ethnicity have no
significant correlation to level of antagonism

41. As public administrators are making
decisions affecting general employees
and public safety employees, they
need to keep in mind that a difference
in treatment between the two groups
can lead to a higher degree of
antagonism, which can affect working
relationships.

42. However, an adversarial
relationship between the two
groups can be advantageous for
public administrators when
making compensation
decisions.

43. If the general employees in Texas
are also brought into the Civil
Service system as they are in other
states, it could facilitate a more
cooperative relationship between the
two groups and result in them joining
together against management when
compensation issues are being
made.

44. Questions?