scholarly journals Public Sector Bargaining

2004 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph B. Rose

There is general agreement that public sector bargaining has evolved through three stages: the expansionary years (mid-1960s to1982), the restraint years (1982-1990) and the retrenchment years (1990s). This paper argues that public sector collective bargaining entered a new stage of development around 1998. The post-retrenchment period or what is referred to as the consolidation stage was marked by economic expansion, the restoration of fiscal stability among the senior levels of government and increases in public employment. Under these conditions, governments and public sector employers sought to consolidate the gains they achieved during the retrenchment years through legislation and hard bargaining. Public sector unions attempted to improve their position by increasing membership and negotiating catch-up wage settlements. Based on a review of selected collective bargaining indicators, employers appear to have consolidated their gains from the retrenchment years.

2017 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Nicholson ◽  
Andreas Pekarek ◽  
Peter Gahan

In 2016, Australian unions faced a mix of new and enduring challenges. A re-elected Conservative federal government made life difficult for unions, maintaining its hard-line approach to public sector bargaining and passing new laws to intensify regulatory scrutiny of union governance and tactics. Unions continued to secure wage premiums through enterprise bargaining, but the longer-term decline in the level of agreement-making and the number of workers covered by enterprise agreements continued. Disputation rose, although less than half of all disputes were caused by enterprise bargaining. Concern over ongoing membership decline saw unions explore and experiment with organisational reforms and initiatives as new, ‘union-like’ actors entered the field. However, our analysis of longer-term membership developments across union types suggests the outlook is alarming for all but those unions focused on occupational identity.


2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Chambers

This analysis explores some of the challenges facing public managers in nurturing their relationship and partnership with public-sector unions. It begins with a discussion of the background that elaborates on union history, discussing the birth of unions, the fall of private-sector unions, and the rise of government unions.  This is followed by a review of the relevant professional and scientific literature to better develop the topic and focus the analysis.  As the field of government labor-management relations is complex, the unique characteristics of government labor-management relationships that are lacking in the private-sector context necessitate a practitioner approach and an integrated synthesis of the literature. The analysis concludes that when collective bargaining is applied to public-sector business, it must be tailored to achieve proper alignment with taxpayers, who are the major stakeholders in public-sector services.


2005 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 200-209
Author(s):  
G. K. Cowan

The author reports on Prince Edward Island's attempt to solve some of the key issues of public sector bargaining through Us recent collective bargaining regulations for teachers and the public service.


2005 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 537-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen Ponak

The objective here is to report on the experiences of the Special Committee on Collective Bargaining Impasses in Public Employment and to emphasize how the various parties viewed the impasses procedures then in effect and what kinds of revisions they considered most desirable.


2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexis N. Walker

Why did public sector unionization rise so dramatically and then plateau at the same time as private sector unionization underwent a precipitous decline? The exclusion of public sector employees from the centerpiece of private sector labor law—the 1935 Wagner Act—divided U.S. labor law and relegated public sector demand-making to the states. Consequently, public sector employees' collective bargaining rights were slow to develop and remain geographically concentrated, unequal and vulnerable. Further, divided labor law put the two movements out of alignment; private sector union density peaked nearly a decade before the first major statutes granting public sector collective bargaining rights passed. As a result of this incongruent timing and sequencing, the United States has never had a strong union movement comprised of both sectors at the height of their membership and influence.


2012 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 612-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Étienne Cantin

SummarySince the onset of the Great Recession, anti-union conservatives have been hammering out an arguably bogus yet politically potent argument: collective bargaining with government workers is unaffordable as their wages, health benefits, and pensions are driving states into deficits. Whilst evidence does not support the politically motivated attacks on public sector workers and their unions, a confluence of political-economic factors has been abetting efforts to scapegoat public employees and their unions.The first section of this essay places the 2011 wave of anti-public-sector-collective-bargaining statutes in its broad political and economic context. Whilst resulting from a longstanding hostility of the USA’s conservative movement to unionism and collective bargaining, recent anti-public-sector-collective-bargaining statutes are also the outcome of three political-economic developments galvanising anti-union GOPers—first, the fact that most US union members are now government workers, which makes it easier for anti-unionists to characterize them as a “privileged” elite; second, the Great Recession and ensuing deficit crisis; and third, the rousing of the conservative movement that led to the 2010 electoral “shellacking” of the Democrats. The second section focuses specifically on Wisconsin and argues that what is going on there ought to be seen for what it is: an attempt to exploit the economic crisis to win an eminently political victory over organised labour and allied Democrats.


2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-174
Author(s):  
Daniel Chigudu

This article discusses the arguments against adopting collective bargaining in the public sector and its benefits. Collective bargaining in the public sector is viewed primarily as undermining democratic governance in one way and paradoxically it is seen as an essential part of democratic governance. In the former view, collective bargaining in the public sector is seen as an interference with administrative law for personal benefit to the detriment of the taxpayer. Proponents of this view argue that unionising public sector employees encourages disloyalty to the government at the expense of public welfare. In the later view, public sector collective bargaining is viewed as a fundamental human right in a pluralistic society. Advocates of this view posit that, public sector unions provide a collective voice that stimulates improvement of government services as well as sound administration of law. They also argue that, public sector collective bargaining represents public policy interests and serves as a watchdog to government’s monopoly power in employment matters. Public sector unions raise employee salaries and perks to levels higher than they would have been in the absence of collective bargaining. These two opposite views are subjected to a critical analysis in this paper, with empirical evidence for both the benefits of public sector collective bargaining and arguments against public sector unions. The article found that public sector collective bargaining depends on the socio-economic background of states although international laws favour public sector unionism.


2016 ◽  
Vol 110 (4) ◽  
pp. 763-777 ◽  
Author(s):  
SARAH F. ANZIA ◽  
TERRY M. MOE

Schattschneider's insight that “policies make politics” has played an influential role in the modern study of political institutions and public policy. Yet if policies do indeed make politics, rational politicians have opportunities to use policies to structure future politics to their own advantage—and this strategic dimension has gone almost entirely unexplored. Do politicians actually use policies to make politics? Under what conditions? In this article, we develop a theoretical argument about what can be expected from strategic politicians, and we carry out an empirical analysis on a policy development that is particularly instructive: the adoption of public-sector collective bargaining laws by the states during the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s—laws that fueled the rise of public-sector unions, and “made politics” to the advantage of Democrats over Republicans.


Author(s):  
Adam Mertz

Since the turn of the 20th century, teachers have tried to find a balance between bettering their own career prospects as workers and educating their students as public servants. To reach a workable combination, teachers have utilized methods drawn from union movements, the militant and labor-conscious approach favored by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), as well as to professional organizations, the tradition from which the National Education Association (NEA) arose. Because teachers lacked the federally guaranteed labor rights that private-sector workers enjoyed after Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, teachers’ fortunes—in terms of collective bargaining rights, control over classroom conditions, pay, and benefits—often remained tied to the broader public-sector labor movement and to state rather than federal law. Opponents of teacher unionization consistently charged that as public servants paid by tax revenues, teachers and other public employees should not be allowed to form unions. Further, because women constituted the vast majority of teachers and union organizing often represented a “manly” domain, the opposition’s approach worked quite well, successfully preventing teachers from gaining widespread union recognition. But by the late 1960s and early 1970s, thanks to an improved economic climate and invigoration from the women’s movement, civil rights struggles, and the New Left, both AFT and NEA teacher unionism surged forward, infused with a powerful militancy devoted to strikes and other political action, and appeared poised to capture federal collective bargaining rights. Their newfound assertiveness proved ill-timed, however. After the economic problems of the mid-1970s, opponents of teacher unions once again seized the opportunity to portray teacher unions and other public-sector unions as greedy and privileged interest groups functioning at the public’s expense. President Ronald Reagan accentuated this point when he fired all of the more than 10,000 striking air traffic controllers during the 1981 Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) strike. Facing such opposition, teacher unions—and public-sector unions in general—shifted their efforts away from strikes and toward endorsing political candidates and lobbying governments to pass favorable legislation. Given these constraints, public-sector unions enjoyed a large degree of success in the 1990s through the early 2000s, even as private-sector union membership plunged to less than 10 percent of the workforce. After the Great Recession of 2008, however, austerity politics targeted teachers and other public-sector workers and renewed political confrontations surrounding the legitimacy of teacher unions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document