Public Sector Collective Bargaining Research Articles

Public Sector Collective Bargaining: A Meta-Review

Public sector labor unions and their commitment to collective bargaining are central to the study of public sector human resource management. This study explores collective bargaining scholarship in the United States as exemplified in the public administration literature. Systematically coding 220 articles from the top fifteen (mainstream) peer-reviewed public administration journals over a period of 50 years (1970–2020), this study examines how public sector collective bargaining is framed and conceptualized in public administration research, identifying, and studying the dimensions of public sector collective bargaining research in the United States. The primary purpose of this article is to map trends and gaps in local, state, and federal public sector collective bargaining scholarship, which is an essential public personnel function in need of further academic attention. It is also hoped that this study could stimulate future research into public sector collective bargaining.

An Archival Examination of Gender-Specific Terminology in Public and Private Sector Collective Bargaining Agreements

Organizations and labor unions are at the crossroads of transformational change in workplace demographics. In increasing numbers, female workers are entering fields and occupations that have historically been primarily occupied by male workers. However, despite these shifts in workplace demographics, many collective bargaining agreements (CBA’s) are outdated with the use of gender-specific terminologies which are rooted in the historic industrial workplace and contain terminology implicating a workplace and occupation only held by male workers. This article examined the frequency with which such gender-specific terminology is used in both public and private sector CBA’s. Additionally, the article also offers recommendations for both organizations and labor unions with respect to terminology changes in their CBAs. Failure to adapt and modify such language may reflect a lack of inclusion by both organizations and labor unions with respect to their employees and members.

Two roads diverged: Legal context and changing levels of private and public sector union density in the US states, 1984–2019

This article examines the causes of the different historical trajectories of US union membership in the private and public sectors, a topic relevant for understanding the link between unions and industrial democracy. The article focuses on the different legal contexts shaping membership in these two sectors, especially the role of right-to-work (RTW) and public sector collective bargaining (PSCB) laws. Using state-level data from 1984 to 2019, the study finds that RTW laws decrease, and PSCB laws increase union membership in both sectors, suggesting cross-over effects. The authors conclude with a discussion of the implications of these findings for the prospects of expanding economic and industrial democracy.

The Recent Evolution of Wisconsin Public Worker Unionism since Act 10

This paper examines the experience of four major public sector unions in Wisconsin since the passage of Wisconsin Act 10 in 2011. The four unions are the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT-Wisconsin), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), an affiliate of the National Education Association. Wisconsin’s prior legal framework for public sector collective bargaining is explained and compared to the new highly restrictive framework established by Act 10. That new framework, established by state legislation, is analyzed, as are its impacts on the membership, revenues, structures, and practices of the four unions. In general, we find the impacts to have been very dramatic, with a loss of active union membership averaging approximately 70 percent overall, and concomitant dramatic losses in union revenues and power. These shocks have engendered the restructuring of two of the unions examined, the downsizing of the third, and the de facto exiting from the state’s public sector in another. There have also been significant changes in representation practices in one union, but less so in the others. We conclude by discussing best union practices based on this experience, as well as considering what the recent public sector union history in Wisconsin may portend for public worker union membership nationwide, since the issuing of the Janus Decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

No coincidence: with union rights under attack, education is suffering

18 | International Union Rights | 26/1 FOCUS | UNION RIGHTS OF STATE ADMINISTRATION AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES WORKERS The distribution of wealth and, therefore, power in the US is more skewed than any other industrialised country. While ‘socialism’ is a term scorned by many, people without wealth depend on institutions to preserve their collective interests. Institutions such as unions, the public education system, the civil rights movement and the Democratic Party have particularly served as the vehicles by which the distribution of power has been redistributed, attempting to level the playing field between the wealthy (often characterised as the ‘one percent’) and the majority. The attacks on unions, especially those in the public sector where the unionisation rate is significantly higher than in the private sector, and particularly the unions whose members provide public education, are part of a systematic assault on the rights of people without means and a determined effort of the wealthy to preserve their riches and power. While all unions are under attack, the assault on education unions is particular targeted and comprehensive. Why in particular education unions? Historically, education has been perceived as a path of upward mobility. A good education was seen to substitute for social connections that might ease the way into economic mobility. A vibrant public education system is a cornerstone of the democracy. Education unions not only advocate for those they represent but are our strongest institutional advocates for strong, well- funded public schools, and education policies that will result in all children receiving a great education. It is no coincidence that in Michigan attacks on labour, especially education unions, and public education have come hand in hand. As it is no coincidence that as labour has been under attack, the performance of public schools in Michigan has declined dramatically. The Michigan Experience The first public sector labour law was enacted in Wisconsin in 1959, ironic as under former Governor Scott Walker, the state has all but eliminated public sector bargaining rights. More and more states passed laws – Michigan in 1965 – although in 2019 there are five states that prohibit, and six states that do not provide for, meaningful public sector collective bargaining for educators through law. Michigan isn’t the only state where the labour movement and collective bargaining has been under attack, far from it, nor is it the most extreme case. For example, Michigan still has collective bargaining. Wisconsin’s public sector has it in name only. But Michigan tells a story that is a fair representation of what many others have also endured. While the barrage of punches came non-stop during the eight years of Governor Rick Snyder’s administration between 2011 and 2018, in Michigan the writing was on the wall back in 1994. The Republicans had taken complete control of state government and passed Public Act 112, which increased penalties for striking (already illegal), and gave employers the unilateral right to privatise noninstructional work. Previously, employers had to secure the right to privatise at the bargaining table. Privatised workers are most often non-union, earning lower pay, fewer if any benefits, and not part of the school employees’ retirement plan. These are the parents of our students. So, in reality, Public Act 112 undercut the ability of families to support their kids. 1994 also saw Michigan’s first charter school law passed, in the name of education reform, used to avoid unionised educators (most charter school companies fight unionisation with all they have) and resulting in the defunding of traditional public schools. And starting around 2006, education, and almost all other public employees, took significant contract concessions and layoffs. The battering intensified with the 2010 election of Governor Rick Snyder. His first budget gave business a $1.8 billion tax cut, paid for by massive cuts to K-12 (kindergarten through to high school education) and higher education and by increasing taxes on low income families and retirees. Funding was already greatly inadequate. Even with the positive effects of President Obama’s stimulus package, contract concessions became the norm in K-12 as did layoffs or reduction in force through attrition. Between 1995 and 2015 Michigan ranked 50th out of 50 in growth of K-12...

Brief of Professors Cynthia L. Estlund, Samuel Estreicher, Julius G. Getman, William B. Gould IV, Michael C. Harper, and Theodore J. St. Antoine, as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent in Janus V. American Fed. Of State, County, and Muni. Employees, No. 16-1466

Our brief makes a functional argument for public sector collective bargaining. Employees expect, and the government employer generally favors, horizontal uniformity – similar terms and conditions for similarly- situated employees. Any terms negotiated with one employee would, as a practical matter, have to be extended to all other similarly-situated employees. The employer thus must maintain uniform working conditions and criteria for making pay, promotion, and other personnel decisions for similarly-situated workers. The choice for the employer is whether to impose terms unilaterally, perhaps with the assistance of HR and outside consultants, or bargain collectively with employees. In choosing between these two options, the challenge for the public employer is how to obtain the most dedicated, effective performance from its staff consistent with budgetary and other constraints. What states that authorize collective bargaining, including Illinois, have realized, the brief contends is that meeting employees’ expectations for influence and reception to grievances may not be possible without an independent organization to express employee concerns and preferences and provide integrity for inside grievance adjustment systems. Realizing these shortcomings of unilateral management, the brief argues, some states, including Illinois, at first set up “meet and confer” systems involving groups of employees without exclusive representation authority and with voluntary memberships. These states soon discovered that employees remained dissatisfied and management soon became worried that inter-group divisions could produce fractured bargaining agreements for single units of employees. As a result, states like Illinois abandoned meet and confer for collective bargaining with an exclusive representative because that system has a distinct advantage: Providing an independent employee voice likely to reveal employee preferences and concerns that management might not be able to elicit on its own and to ensure that those preferences and concerns are effectively heard during bargaining and in the grievance procedure. To achieve this, the brief argues, the exclusive representative must be employee funded. If the representative were to be funded by the [employer], it would in short order be reasonably viewed by the employees as an organ of management. Finally, the brief argues that a collective bargaining system like this does not pose First Amendment problems but rather furthers First Amendment values. For one, exclusive representation funded by employees – coupled with the safeguards of Abood and the union’s statutory duty of representation -- supports a meaningful employee voice in the workplace, a goal consistent with free speech values. And agency fees, the brief argues, should be viewed like a tax, as an assessment for a program that provides collective benefits for affected employees. Assessments like those to pay for lawful collective programs do not violate the First Amendment under existing case law, the brief argues, even where the assessments are levied on objectors.

Reconciling Agency Fee Doctrine, the First Amendment, and the Modern Public Sector Union

Few institutions have done more to improve working conditions for the middle class than labor unions. Their efforts, of course, cost money. To fund union activities, thousands of collective bargaining agreements across the nation have long included provisions permitting employers to require employees to pay fair share, or fees. In public unions when the employer is the government this arrangement creates tension between two important values: the First Amendment's protection against compelled expression, and the collective benefits of worker representation. When confronted with this tension nearly forty years ago in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court struck an uneasy compromise, allowing public sector unions to recoup expenses for collective bargaining, not for political activity. For decades, the decision has been a lightning rod, with some scholars calling for its reversal and others insisting on its preservation. In the meantime, the realities of modern public sector collective bargaining have changed, and First Amendment jurisprudence has evolved. The Supreme Court has recently signaled an interest in revisiting the issue, and test cases are making their way through the circuit courts. The time has come to reconsider Abood's fragile compromise. This Article offers a new way forward within the First Amendment, one that honors the importance of both union activity and free expression. It proposes a way to reconcile these twin interests while also updating the doctrine to account for state legislative efforts, modern union realities, and First Amendment jurisprudential developments. Specifically, the Article argues that agency fees should be brought into step with current political contribution and campaign finance jurisprudence. Under this approach, some agency fees but only those that are closely drawn to avoid unnecessary expressive infringement will remain lawful. This approach, a middle ground, may not satisfy those who ardently oppose agency fees of any kind, or those who want Abood's rule fully upheld. Still, it emerges as the best way forward through a difficult terrain: It avoids the false dichotomy between union and political activities, respects state legislatures that craft innovative collective bargaining statutes, and grounds public sector agency fees with other coherent aspects of First Amendment jurisprudence.

To Collect and Preserve: The State of State-Level CBA Collections in the United States

In order to evaluate the preservation and accessibility of public sector collective bargaining documentation in the United States, the authors conducted a fifty-state survey of public sector collective bargaining agreement (CBA) collections. The study generated relevant data in four key areas: the presence of such collections, the scope of existing collections with regard to covered employees, the depth of those collections when compared with historical collective bargaining in a given state, and the relationship between a perceived legal mandate for collection and the presence of such collections. The authors discuss the public policy implications of their findings, and areas for further study, action, and advocacy.

Do Politicians Use Policy to Make Politics? The Case of Public-Sector Labor Laws

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.

Austerity as an opportunity for union revival: Québec public school teachers

AbstractThis article proposes an account of how two teachers’ labour federations have been reacting to austerity measures in public education. Current austerity measures have coincided with the renewal of collective agreements, thus allowing the study of how unions link bargaining stances to wider issues of service quality and accessibility. Union responses are the result of at least three influences: the institutional framework for public sector collective bargaining and worker representation, the previous orientation of members and their organisations towards social and work relations, and ongoing innovations for renewal and member engagement. We posit that union responses can contribute to renewal if they are guided by concerns to redefine union purpose, union organisation and building capacities. Under these conditions, unions are able to engage members and push forward an alternative agenda to that of the government. In doing so, they may be able to forge temporary alliances with outside stakeholders, namely parents. Analysis of union responses should consider the dialectic between union renewal effort and the opportunities and constraints of the institutional framework for public sector collective bargaining. The challenge for these two labour federations is in sustaining member engagement and activism beyond the current context of collective bargaining.

The Multilateral Structure of Local Government and Public Sector Collective Bargaining

The Multilateral Structure of Local Government and Public Sector Collective Bargaining

Labor Politics in a Weak Institutional Environment Structural Power and Strategic Alliances of Healthcare and Education Employees in East Central Europe

This paper explores the sources of labour’s bargaining power in a weak institutional environment, by focusing on the answers that public sector employees gave to crisis-induced austerity and the atrophy of collective bargaining in East Central Europe. As a result of ever tighter budgetary constraints, governments introduced wage and employment cuts in the public sector unilaterally, sidestepping bargaining institutions all over Europe. In East Central Europe, the degradation of public sector collective bargaining is the latest step in labour’s institutional decline since the start of the transition to a market economy. Nevertheless, the paper argues that even under extremely unfavourable institutional conditions, public sector employees could mobilize resources to fend off some of the austerity pressures. These non-institutional sources of labour power include the structural position of different employee groups and their coalition building capacities. To assess how these factors affect bargaining power and eventually bargaining outcomes, the paper features a cross-industry comparison between public healthcare and education in the East Central European region. The paper argues that the level of analysis has to be shifted from the encompassing public sector to specific industries within the public sector: healthcare and education. Despite similar bargaining institutions in the two industries - central or local governments as the main bargaining partner and relatively high levels of bargaining coverage rates - healthcare employees managed to weather austerity pressures relatively well compared to teachers. Using Beverly Silver’s theoretical framework, the paper claims that healthcare workers enjoy higher levels of structural power than teachers because of the labour shortage characteristic of the healthcare industry. This power has been manifested through the recent bargaining successes that doctors and nurses achieved all over the region by capitalizing on the issue of mass emigration. This happened even in Hungary, which features a comparatively very weak system of interest representation. On the other hand, we see mostly examples of failures in the education sector, but the exceptional success of the 2012 Estonian teachers strike proves that the structural weakness of the education workforce can be counterbalanced by apt coalitional strategies. Estonian teachers gained wide-spread support from the general public, from unions in other industries and from Scandinavian trade union partners, while they managed to avoid direct alliances with political parties. Although the paper focuses on East Central Europe, its findings are relevant from a broader European perspective, as bargaining institutions are on the decline in most “old” EU-member states’ as well, bringing non-institutional sources of labour’s power to the fore.

Constraints on public sector bargaining in Canada

This article examines public sector bargaining in Canada during the consolidation period (1998–2013). The period was associated with economic turbulence (sustained economic growth followed by the global economic crisis), support for neoliberal policies across the entire political spectrum (the adoption of free market policies and austerity budgets) and extensive litigation challenging the constitutionality of legislation restricting collective bargaining rights. To assess the impact of these environmental pressures on relative bargaining power, the study examined selected collective bargaining indicators – union membership, wage settlements and strike activity. Our results indicate that the relative bargaining power of public sector unions was eroded during this period. The article concludes that a period of highly constrained public sector collective bargaining will continue in the future.

The Effects of Collective Bargaining Rights on Public Employee Compensation

Widespread public-sector unionism emerged only in the 1960s, as individual states opened the door to collective bargaining for state and municipal workers. In this study, the author exploits differences in timing of legislative reforms across states to construct estimates of the causal effects of public-sector collective bargaining rights on pay, benefits, and employment for teachers, firefighters, and police. Perhaps surprisingly, estimates that allow for state fixed effects and state-specific trends show little effect on teachers’ pay, benefits, or employment, despite significantly increasing union presence among teachers. For firefighters, the results show a substantial positive effect on wages. For police, the wage effect was more modest but the workweek was significantly shortened.

The Whiteness of Wisconsin's Wages: Racial Geography and the Defeat of Public Sector Labor Unions in Wisconsin

In 2011, the passage of Wisconsin Act 10 eliminated substantive collective bargaining rights for public employees in Wisconsin. How did politicians in Wisconsin invoke racial symbolism in the policy contest over public sector collective bargaining rights? To what extent did this policy battle reconstruct racial identities of blackness and whiteness? In this analysis, we leverage a multi-method approach to speak to these questions. We use a historical analysis of race in Milwaukee and current public opinion around support for public sector cuts to frame a discourse analysis of political rhetoric employed by the Walker campaign. We join critical race perspectives to examine how politicians play on existing inequalities as a method of gaining political and electoral legitimacy and achieving a retrenchment of the modern state. Moreover, we build a case supporting the claim that Governor Walker and his allies activated the racial animus of white workers.

Collective bargaining: An analysis of hurdles and applicability in the public sector

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.

International Labour Law Standards Concerning Collective Bargaining in Public Essential Services

Labour standards adopted under the auspices of the ILO constitute the principal international influences on public sector collective bargaining; it is those standards that are the subject of this article. Focusing on the position of essential public sector employees, ILO principles concerning collective bargaining, dispute settlement and the right of workers to withdraw their services as part of bargaining are examined. Particular attention is devoted to the application of ILO standards to essential public sector employees and police officers; and the extent to which Australian law complies with these standards. The ILO supervisory bodies have acknowledged that restrictions on the general right of workers to collectively bargain and to strike can be justified in the case of essential public employees, but only on a minimal or proportional analysis. The ILO has also emphasised that any restrictions on the right to strike must be compensated by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration processes. It is shown, however, that with respect to essential public employees and police officers operating under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), Australian law falls short on both of these scores, with a resultant uncertainty regarding the right of these workers to bargain collectively.

The Global debt crisis: haunting U.S. and European federalism

Debt crises have placed strains not only on the European Union's nascent federal system but also on the federal system in the United States. Old confrontations over fiscal responsibility are being renewed, often in a more virulent form, in places as far flung as Detroit, Michigan, and Valencia, Spain, to say nothing of Greece and Cyprus. Increasing the complexity of the issue has been public sector collective bargaining, now a component of most federal systems. The attendant political controversies have become the debate of a generation. Paul Peterson and Daniel Nadler have assembled experts from both sides of the Atlantic to break down the structural flaws in federal systems of government that have led to economic and political turmoil. Proposed solutions offer ways to preserve and restore vibrant federal systems that meet the needs of communities struggling for survival in an increasingly unified global economy. Contributors: Andrew G. Biggs (American Enterprise Institute); Cesar Colino (National Distance Education University, Madrid, Spain); Eloisa del Pino (Instituto de Politicas y Bienes Publicos, Madrid, Spain); Henrik Enderlein (Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, Germany); Cory Koedel (University of Missouri, USA); Carlos Xabel Lastra-Anadon (Harvard University, USA); Daniel Nadler (Harvard University, USA); Shawn Ni (University of Missouri, USA); Amy Nugent (Government of Ontario, Canada); James Pearce (Mowat Centre, University of Toronto, Canada); Paul E. Peterson (Harvard University, USA); Michael Podgursky (University of Missouri, USA); Jason Richwine (Washington, D.C. USA); Jonathan Rodden (Stanford University, USA); Daniel Shoag (Harvard University, USA); Richard Simeon (University of Toronto, Canada); Camillo von Muller (University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, and Leuphana University, Germany); Daniel Ziblatt (Harvard University, USA)

Labor's Enduring Divide: The Distinct Path of Public Sector Unions in the United States

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.

Austerity measures and municipalities: the case of Denmark

Danish municipalities have gone through a number of austerity-related government initiatives with consequences for job levels and public services. Moreover, the ‘regulation mechanism’, which ties public sector wages to wage development in the private sector, has worked as an indirect austerity measure leading to a quasi-pay freeze during the public sector collective bargaining rounds in 2011 and 2013. It is difficult, however, to isolate crisis-related consequences from other factors such as demographic development, outsourcing and pre-crisis reform. Social dialogue has played a very limited role in relation to the direct austerity measures, though case studies show that social dialogue at the local level has played a role in the implementation of austerity and restructuring measures. In the education area, working time was removed from the local bargaining agenda after a lock-out and government intervention in the 2013 bargaining round, but beyond this area no major changes in social dialogue institutions have taken place.