A Word (or Two) about Public Sector Collective Bargaining

Abstract

Public Sector Collective Bargaining is a relatively recent phenomenon--its lifecycle can be traced to and indeed may be a lasting legacy of the baby boomers entering the sector workforce in record numbers. Outside of a few traditionally union-friendly or politically progressive jurisdictions, union activity among government employees was virtually unknown and unheard of in the 1950s. During the next two-plus decades, however, union membership rates saw explosive growth so that by 1979 about 38 percent of employees were either members of or represented by unions. Despite an occasional setback, sector unions managed to stay close to this rate for the next 27 years. Ironically, the ascendancy of sector unions almost mirrors the decline of private sector unions; at one time they represented more than one-third of America's workers; today they represent less than nine percent. At the initial stages of sector union organizing there was a robust discussion among practitioners, researchers, and others concerning the changes unionization might cause to the body politic over resource allocation, the determination of policy, the use of political pressure at the bargaining table and the role of the public in bargaining, plus the potential shift in power favoring unionized employees. Acceptance of collective bargaining in government has indeed resulted in changes both at the macro policy/administration level, and the micro human resource administration level. It is hoped that this special issue rekindles the inquiry and debate both from an academic as well as a practitioner perspective. In the five articles relating to this special issue on sector collective bargaining, a number of issues and perspectives are discussed. In lieu of strikes and lockouts, binding interest arbitration has become an accepted method of resolving bargaining impasses for safety employees. Authors David B. Lipsky and Harry C. Katz examine the use of this impasse resolution mechanism in negotiations between the rank and file police officers and management in New York City. Lipsky and Katz served as consultants to the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA), and as such, their scholarly approach is buttressed by firsthand experience. The authors examine the differences between the different forms of interest arbitration in terms of bargaining outcomes and also detail some of the high stakes political pressures surrounding police bargaining in New York City. As relations between labor unions and management in the sector matured, some participants sought to go beyond the traditional zero sum adversarial bargaining and to explore ways to cooperate so that both sides benefited from the process. Authors Barry Rubin and Richard Rubin detail a case study of the Indianapolis labor-management partnership, wherein the administration of Mayor Stephen Goldsmith entered into an arrangement with the union representing rank and file employees after first threatening to privatize most city functions. Rubin and Rubin first describe the underlying condition which made both sides realize that more was to be gained by entering into the partnership than by continuing the mutually hostile approach taken by both sides. …