Deterring Strikes by Public Employees: New York's Two-For-One Salary Penalty and the 1979 Prison Guard Strike

ILR Review ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 545-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew A. Peterson

After briefly tracing the development of the statutory penalties imposed on striking public employees in New York State, this article focuses on the Taylor Law's requirement that such strikers lose two days' salary for each day they are on strike. Particular emphasis is placed on the litigation that occurred in the aftermath of the statewide strike by prison guards in 1979, when the guards' union challenged several aspects of the two-for-one penalty. The author concludes that the act's current provision governing payment of the penalty—requiring that the entire two-for-one penalty be deducted from the strikers' paychecks during a sixty-day period after the strike—imposes a major hardship on participants in a long strike, and he recommends the act be amended in a way that he believes will not undermine the deterrent purposes of the penalty.

2020 ◽  
pp. 120-143
Author(s):  
Ronald W. Schatz

During the 1960s, thousands of schoolteachers, nurses, sanitation workers, prison guards, firefighters, and police joined unions for the first time. Many of those workers defied the law by going on strike. This chapter explains how the Labor Board vets tried to mediate such strikes in New York City and then drafted new legislation for the public-sector employees in New York State. The Taylor Law enabled hundreds of thousands of public employees to unionize. But it did not stop strikes or slow wage and salary increases. On the contrary, relations between the public union employees, government agencies, and the public remained turbulent for years.


ILR Review ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 531-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn Zimmer ◽  
James B. Jacobs

In analyzing the 1979 strike by nearly all of the prison guards in New York State, this paper focuses on the social organization of the prison environment and the guards' changing occupational role as critical causes of the strike. Many guards believe that in recent years they have lost status and much of their authority; in addition, racial tension has mounted within the guard force as well as between guards and inmates. The authors argue that collective bargaining is not well suited to resolving those problems, and in fact the bargaining system may have aggravated them. The authors also analyze the strike's resolution, concluding that it was the state's use of National Guard troops and the application of Taylor Law sanctions, rather than any bargaining strategy by either party, that brought the guards back to work. Finally, the authors suggest that these strike penalties may have intensified the worker anger and discontent that were major causes of the strike.


Author(s):  
Marvin S. Swartz ◽  
Jeffrey W. Swanson ◽  
Henry J. Steadman ◽  
Pamela Clark Robbins ◽  
John Monahan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document