Public Sector Unions Research Articles

Friedrichs and the Move Toward Private Ordering of Wages and Benefits in the Public Sector

In its recent Harris v. Quinn opinion the U.S. Supreme Court (in particular Justice Alito) seemed to welcome a future opportunity to reconsider the 1977 landmark Abood decision in which public sector closed shop employees were not required to join a union but could be subject to fees that cover the costs of “collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes.” Supporters of the Abood approach argue that it is a reasonable compromise that prevents non-members from free riding on the union’s efforts (i.e. enjoying the wages and benefits negotiated by the union without sharing the costs incurred.) Detractors and the plaintiffs in Friedrichs argue that free riding concerns are insufficient to overcome serious First Amendment objections. The central idea is that all bargaining in the public sector is inherently political. Public sector pay, tenure and benefits (especially expensive retiree health care and pension promises), it is claimed, now profoundly affect the ability of state and local governments to function in many jurisdictions. This article briefly reviews the major claim in Friedrichs -- that public sector agency agreements violate the First Amendment -- and considers the implications of a decision that, but for Justice Scalia’s unexpected death almost certainly would have overturned Abood. What would this mean for financially strapped state and local governments? To understand what a victory for the Friedrichs plaintiffs would mean, this paper looks at recent data from Wisconsin which dramatically constrained public sector agency agreements a few years ago and has seen public union membership, union revenue and political power plunge as a result. If Friedrichs had overturned Abood during the 2016 term, we would now expect to see national patterns similar to those observed in Wisconsin. In many places around the country a drop in public sector union political power would be expected to translate into a climate more supportive of reduced future expenditures on public pensions and health care.

Budget allocation design in the EU pre-commercial procurement for innovation

PurposePre-commercial procurement (PCP), introduced by the European Commission in 2007, is the most important purchasing procedure available to the European Union public sector to solicit innovative solutions from the business sector. As such solutions are not yet in the market, they first require research and development (R&D) activities. PCP is concerned with procuring R&D services only, and typically consists of three phases. This paper aims to discuss how the budget available to the contracting authority (CA) may be optimally allocated along such three phases.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is mostly theoretical and the CA is assumed to maximise the overall probability of success in the PCP, that is the probability of receiving at least one successful proposal at the end of the procedure.FindingsThe main finding of the paper suggests that, for a CA, the optimal budget allocation across the three phases of the PCP depends on how likely it is to receive successful proposals in various stages of the procedure, as well as on the rewards paid to the invited companies.Practical implicationsIn this paper, the author proposes a methodology for the optimal budget allocation of a CA and discusses how the approach could be practically implemented, pointing out its potential difficulties.Social implicationsThe main social implication of the findings is represented by the best use of the available budget, hence taxpayers’ money.Originality/valueTo the best of the author’s knowledge, no existing paper has discussed the optimal budget allocation in a PCP as in this work.

What's Wrong with Police Unions?

In an era of declining labor power, police unions stand as a rare success story for worker organizing—they exert political clout and negotiate favorable terms for their members. Yet, despite broad support for unionization on the political left, police unions have become public enemy number one for academics and activists concerned about race and police violence. Much criticism of police unions focuses on their obstructionist nature and how they prioritize the interests of their members over the interests of the communities they police. These critiques are compelling—police unions shield officers and block oversight. But, taken seriously, they often sound like critiques of unions in general, not just police unions. To the extent that public-sector unionism remains a social good because of concerns for economic inequality and worker power, wholeheartedly embracing these critiques seems like a risky proposition. This Article examines the strange case of police unions and asks how they are (and are not) representative of U.S. unionism. More pointedly, this Article asks what increasingly common critiques of police unions should mean for policing reform and the future of public-sector unionism. In an effort to construct a more nuanced picture of police unions’ functions, I situate the role of police unions within two disparate scholarly debates: (1) the literature on policing reform; and (2) the literature on public sector unions. How are police unions different from other public-sector unions, and how might critiques and defenses of police unions apply to other public-sector unions? Ultimately, I argue that the challenge in articulating a theory of what makes police unions different highlights both the problem with police and the problem with the way scholars think about unions. If police unions are objectionable because of their views and the conduct of police, this concern speaks to a problem with police—full stop. The problems with the unions are only issues by extension. If the unions are objectionable because of their commitment to their members’ interests over those of the public at large, though, the critiques are properly understood as undercutting public-sector unions generally.

The Trouble with Identity and Progressive Origins in Defending Labour Law

Debate about labour regulation is not new. What is new is the urgency with which labour law reform is promoted as an important fix to economic woes. In recent years, calls for reform resound in poor and rich countries alike. The economic crisis in the United States and in Europe has intensified these debates, making labour regulation a prime target for reform. In several US states public sector unions have been under attack, depicted as a privileged class that drains public funds with high wages, cosy benefits, and retirement privileges that no other workers enjoy. Several European countries have introduced austerity measures that target labour regulation and other foundations of the welfare state as sources of economic waste that they can no longer afford. Moreover, it is argued that “rigid” labour regulation hampers job creation, which can be strengthened through a program of labour flexibilisation.

Transnational Competence: A Transformative Tool? A Comparison of German and Irish Political Trade Union Education Programs

In the literature on cross-border labor action, labor education is seen as an important factor to improving it. This article therefore first reconstructs an innovative pedagogic concept, transformative Transnational Competence, to advance transnational labor education and action. Although initially developed for multinational firms and international organizations, this pedagogical concept is promising for labor, as it also focuses on emotional issues that are central to collective action. Subsequently, we use our reconstructed concept as a yardstick to assess labor education programs of public and private sector unions in Ireland and Germany. Our study shows that all unions face similar difficulties leading to rather little attention to transnational labor education, regardless of the very different labor relations landscapes in which they are operating. Hence, unions’ difficulties in relation to transnational labor education and action cannot be due to distinct national or sectorial factors, such as labor relations systems and different amounts of resources allocated to labor education. Instead, transnational labor education is facing challenges that are common in all cases, notably the tension between utilitarian and emancipatory orientations of union leaders, educators, and members involved in labor education programs.

Understanding the Impact of Bullying in a Unionized U.S. Public Sector Workforce.

Background: Workplace Bullying (WPB) can have a tremendous, negative impact on the victims and the organization as a whole. The purpose of this study was to examine individual and organizational impact associated with exposure to bullying in a large U.S. unionized public sector workforce. Methods: A cross-sectional Web-based survey was conducted among 16,492 U.S. state government workers. Survey domains included demographics, negative acts (NAs) and bullying, supportiveness of the organizational climate, and individual and organizational impacts of bullying. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the impact among respondents who reported exposure to bullying. Findings: A total of 72% participants responded to the survey (n = 11,874), with 43.7% (n = 5,181) reporting exposure to NAs and bullying. A total of 40% (n = 4,711) participants who experienced WPB reported individual impact(s) while 42% (n = 4,969) reported organization impact(s). Regular NA was associated with high individual impact (negatively impacted them personally; odds ratio [OR] = 5.03) when controlling for other covariates including: female gender (OR =1.89) and job tenure of 6 to 10 years (OR = 1.95); working in a supportive organizational climate and membership in a supportive bargaining unit were protective of high impact (OR = 0.04 and OR = 0.59, respectively). High organizational impact (transferring to another position) was associated with regular NA and bullying (OR = 16.26), female gender (OR = 1.55), providing health care and field service (OR = 1.68), and protective effect of organizational climate (OR = 0.39). We found a dose-response relationship between bullying and both individual and organizational-level impact. Conclusion/Application to Practice: Understanding the impacts of WPB should serve to motivate more workplaces and unions to implement effective interventions to ameliorate the problem by enhancing the organizational climate, as well as management and employee training on the nature of WPB and guidance on reporting.

The Costs of Supreme Court Decisions: Towards A Best Cost-Avoider Theory of Constitutional Law

Supreme Court decisions have costs, and seldom are they higher than in constitutional cases. Consider how Dred Scott relegated free people to slavery, and how a civil war soon followed. Or how Black Americans suffered under Jim Crow for decades after Plessy. Or how in the wake of Korematsu, thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans were detained in incarceration camps until the end of World War II. Sometimes, however, groups that lose at the Court have something more to say about their fates. The Article V amendment process is usually only a trifling part of this story; these groups are far more likely to engage in sub-constitutional efforts to avoid their harms. For example, after the Supreme Court overruled Lochner, industries protected their bottom lines by raising prices and reducing employment. After Brown, some white families sent their children to private schools or moved to the suburbs. And after the Court invalidated fair share fees in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, public sector unions successfully persuaded workers to pay dues voluntarily. Not all Supreme Court defeats, it seems, inflict equally inescapable harms. Or in the language of law and economics, some groups are better able to avoid the costs of an adverse Supreme Court ruling than others. Constitutional law should take account of this fact. If virtually everyone agrees that neither the Court nor elected lawmakers will get every close constitutional question right, we may as well ask whether there is a way to minimize the costs created when either one is at risk of getting the Constitution wrong. This is a best cost-avoider theory of constitutional law: in hard constitutional cases, the Supreme Court should rule against the group that can best avoid the costs of an adverse decision.

Janus’s Two Faces

In ancient Roman religion and myth, “Janus” is the god of beginnings, transitions, and endings. He is often depicted as having two faces, one looking to the future and one to the past. The Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME case of last term is fittingly named. Stunning in its disregard of principles of stare decisis, the Janus decision marks the end of the post-New Deal compromise with respect to public sector unions and the First Amendment. Looking to the future, Janus lays the groundwork for further attack on labor rights — as well as for a broader erosion of civil society and democracy at the expense of corporate power. In that way, Janus represents an unequivocal transition to what Justice Kagan termed a “weaponized” view of the First Amendment among the Court’s majority. But Janus may also have another, more hopeful, forward-looking face. Ultimately, Janus’s undoing of the compromise that governed union fees for nearly fifty years provides the opportunity for a systematic rethinking of the relationship between labor and the Constitution and, more generally, of the meaning of the First Amendment. The dissenters on the Court gestured at this broader project, but their future-facing efforts were partial and unsatisfying. Instead, they looked backward to Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a precedent the result of which was tolerable, but the reasoning of which was deeply flawed. Among its problems, Abood helped to lay the groundwork for the current doctrine on compelled speech and for Janus's protection of a right to exit from democratic institutions. Though stare decisis counseled in favor of maintaining Abood, its demise now opens up space to begin to flesh out what, in this setting, Justice Kagan’s promise of a “First Amendment meant for better things” might look like.

Janus, Union Member Speech, and the Public Employee Speech Doctrine

In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”), the Supreme Court held that public sector unions can no longer collect fees from nonmembers to fund the costs of representing them in collective bargaining and grievance proceedings. The Court determined that virtually all union speech is political speech and that collection of these fees is impermissible compelled speech under the First Amendment. However, not everything in Janus harms public union interests. The Janus Court’s discussion of Garcetti v. Cabellos and Connick v. Myers actually helps protect union member speech in the context of First Amendment retaliation cases. This Article argues that, after Janus, speech by union representatives on behalf of their union is not “employee speech” under Garcetti and is almost always a matter of public concern under Connick. Further, this Article argues that ordinary union member speech and union grievance filings are not “employee speech” either. In support of the latter, this Article also looks to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lane v. Franks as well as the nature of union membership generally.

Do Teachers Want Democracy? Deliberative Culture and Teachers’ Evaluations of Schools

Teachers have become important actors in national, state, and, especially, local politics. Most research on the political behavior of teachers focuses on their relationship with public-sector unions. While extremely useful, little is known about how teachers form the evaluations of schools and districts that motivate their political behavior. I propose and test a new theory of how teachers form evaluations of school satisfaction that centers on deliberative democracy. I argue that, in addition to student performance, teachers factor in how “deliberative” school districts are when expressing satisfaction. Using two separate survey analyses, this article finds that teachers of districts with a stronger deliberative culture are significantly more likely to feel satisfied with the schools in their districts. Moreover, in districts with a stronger deliberative culture, teachers and students are more likely to be included in decision-making at the school level. This latter relationship holds true even for teachers in districts with high levels of student poverty.

Union Viability for the Third Decade of the Twenty-First Century and Beyond

The June 27, 2018 decision of the Janus v. American Federation of State, Country, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 31 case has become one of the most discussed Supreme Court rulings in years. With this one decision the Court has seemed to issue of severe blow to the existence of unions in the American economy. Although this decision applies specifically to public sector unions, it does have real consequences for all types of American unions, both public and private. This is an analysis of what this decision means to unions as they go forward into the future.

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.

Membership Recruitment and Restructuring of the Trade Unions for Effective Functioning of Public Sector Unions

The phenomenon of increased union numbers as an answer to the call by workers who felt otherwise under-represented, and to get recognition, have put forward alternative agendas to the larger unions. Some new unions, it is argued, give a voice to workers in a specific sector or region where established unions have little presence. Others seem to have sprung up in the cracks caused by the fragmentation of the industrial structure in an organisation. Some would postulate it is caused by greedy trade union leaders who want to remain in leadership and with an intention to appropriate union resources to themselves. The failure of many unions to respond to changes in employment patterns has further diminished their power. Few unions manage to appeal to younger workers and/ or contract or part-time employees

The Role of Public Sector Trade Unions in the Representation of Civil Servants

As long as there are employees who are disappointed with the way things are being run in their organisation, as long as there are executives who trample upon the rights of employees on the lower strands, and as long as management and the employees cross each other's path, the formation of public sector unions is not only unavoidable but should even be encouraged. As long as the government has responsible public sector employee unions which will uphold public interest to private interest, good governance will no longer be an aspiration but a reality. As long as there is a responsive management which lends a sympathetic ear to a responsible public sector union which supports the country’s mission and vision, we will achieve the government worthy of the trust and confidence of the people

Between government unilateralism and corporatist bargaining: public sector pension reforms in the UK and Ireland, 2000s–2010s

AbstractStudies on welfare reform in advanced European countries have identified two established paths to welfare retrenchment: government unilateralism and corporatist bargaining. This study explores a more complicated path to welfare reform, wherein governments pursue ‘non-corporatist’ bargaining by actively combining features of unilateralism and negotiation. Such a hybrid case is explained by employing an ‘insider-outsider’ framework for public policy reform. The key argument is that the presence of exclusive insiders complicates the reform process, disqualifying both unilateralism and corporatist bargaining as feasible options for benefit cuts. The author demonstrates the validity of this claim by examining three cases of public sector pension retrenchment in the UK and Ireland during the 2000s and 2010s. Defying the common expectation that benefit cuts in residual welfare states would be promoted with government unilateralism, the public sector pension reforms in the UK and Ireland exhibited more complicated features which combined governments' unilateral initiatives andad hocnegotiations with public sector unions. Future studies may build on this finding to examine hybrid reform cases in a general European context.

Exploiting conditionality: EU and international actors and post-NPM reform in Ireland

Between 2008 and 2015, Ireland undertook unprecedented and systemic public sector reforms in a polity not traditionally considered a prominent reformer. While some of these reforms comprised part of the loan programme agreement with EU and international actors, many others did not. This article argues that the crisis in Ireland provided a window of opportunity to introduce reforms that political and administrative elites had previously found difficult to implement. The authority of the Troika was invoked to provide legitimacy for controversial initiatives, yet some of the reforms went further than the loan programme strictly required. A number of these concerning organisational rationalisation, the public service ‘bargain’ and transversal policy coordination are considered here. Agreements were negotiated with public sector unions that facilitated sharp cuts in pay and conditions, reducing the potential for opposition to change. The reform effort was further legitimated by the reformers’ post-New Public Management, whole-of-government discourse, which situated considerations of effectiveness and efficiency in a broader framework of public service quality and delivery.

A Ticket to Free Ride? Not So Fast: Members-Only Collective Bargaining as a Possible State Response to a Judicially Recognized Right to Work

Union supporters' worst fear came true in 2015 when the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass'n. At stake in Friedrichs was public-sector unions' ability to collect fair-share fees from dissenting employees notwithstanding First Amendment implications, a practice previously upheld by the Court in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education but called into question by the Court's recent decision in Harris v. Quinn. Though the likely impact of a union-adverse decision in Friedrichs is arguably overstated, it is true that a de facto nationwide right-to-work law would drastically change public-sector labor and threaten the considerable power wielded by unions, if not threaten their continued existence. Justice Scalia was almost certainly set to be a member of the five-member majority seeking to overturn Abood, and his death led the Court to split 4–4, thus keeping Abood intact at least awhile longer.This Note, written prior to Justice Scalia's death, presented an option to states that would be dissatisfied with the idea of a right-to-work environment: members-only collective bargaining. Those who support agency-shop provisions argue that failing to charge dissenting employees for their fair share of collective bargaining costs allows them to free ride, while dissenting employees disagree with collective bargaining in the public sector from a political perspective. This proposal provides each side with what they want most — unions and their supporters no longer have to support those individuals who are not willing to pay their fair share, and union opponents have the opportunity to be wholly free from union representation. This Note attempts to weigh the pros and cons of such a drastic and domestically unprecedented response to any future decision by the Court to overrule Abood.

Editorial: Public services, ‘State administration’ workers, and trade union rights

2 | International Union Rights | 26/1 EDITORIAL Editorial: Public services, ‘State administration’ workers, and trade union rights Historically the public sector in many countries has been a site of ‘good jobs’ – well-regulated, providing employment security, decent pensions, and structured career paths. Where the State has permitted unionisation the sector has often been well organised with strong unions. In some cases States have limited the rights of these workers to bargain or to strike, but even within such frameworks, public sector unions have often managed to secure an influential role in moulding employment policy. Even so, the model has not been accepted everywhere, and some countries have seriously curtailed union rights for public sector workers. And even where the more robust union rights model has been well established, it has undergone dramatic transformation in recent years, as not only are workers’ rights under attack, but service provision is being slashed around the world. In this edition of IUR, we are concerned with restrictions on trade union rights for public sector workers, particularly those falling into ‘State administration’ or ‘essential service’ roles. A number of our articles concern workers who do not obviously fall into these classifications, most notably teachers, but either States have attempted to class them as falling into these categories, or States have restricted their rights as though they fell into these categories. Efforts by States to exempt groups of workers from core trade union rights and to reclassify certain groups has created a complicated picture, where worker categorisation is a recurring issue, even where the answer seems well established at the international level. From Germany, the GEW report for IUR on the campaign to overturn a total ban on strike action for teachers, based on their classification as civil servants. The effects of the ban seem clearly at odds with the ILO position. GEW believe an answer may lie with the European Court of Human Rights. But teachers are not alone in facing this kind of misclassification and rights restriction. Other contributions to this edition concern local government workers, firefighters, prison officers, and a host of other public sector occupational groups, all subjected to vague and arbitrary limitations on their rights. Yukihiro Nomura from Japan and Du-seop Kwon of South Korea report on excessive restrictions on even basic organising rights, including the ongoing campaign for firefighter organising rights in Japan, based on the Government’s claim that they are part of the police. The total ban on firefighter unions in Japan can be contrasted with the strength of organisation in the UK, after a century of firefighter union activism. Even here, however, FBU leader Matt Wracks notes that recent years have seen the fire and rescue service in the UK ‘battered by the economic downturn and by central government austerity’, with these service cuts matched by increasing intervention in trade union rights, and restrictions on strike action. Is the attack on both service provision and labour rights mere coincidence, or are they aspects of the same struggle, between people and capitalism? Neoliberal policies such as privatisation, liberalised labour laws, new models for assessing performance and austerity measures have torn up the old model. Privatisation has variously stripped unions of either or both bargaining rights and membership levels, and has undermined the effectiveness of social dialogue and employment policy setting models. Precarious working and casualisation are now reported across the public sector, leading to an increase in part-time, temporary, informal, and contracted workers. There is increasing use private sector labour law; temporary public servants, agency workers, and the use of performance incentives and evaluations typical of the private sector, fuelling a degradation of overall working conditions that has been matched by a downgrading, under austerity, of public services, weakening public service delivery. David Hecker says that in Michigan, and across the US, the attacks on union rights and falling quality of service provision are not a coincidence… Next issue of IUR Articles between 850 and 1800 words should be sent by email (mail@ictur.org) and accompanied by a photograph and short biographical note of the author. Please send by 19 June 2019 if they are to be considered for publication in the next issue of...

Editorial: Public services, ‘State administration’ workers, and trade union rights

2 | International Union Rights | 26/1 EDITORIAL Editorial: Public services, ‘State administration’ workers, and trade union rights Historically the public sector in many countries has been a site of ‘good jobs’ – well-regulated, providing employment security, decent pensions, and structured career paths. Where the State has permitted unionisation the sector has often been well organised with strong unions. In some cases States have limited the rights of these workers to bargain or to strike, but even within such frameworks, public sector unions have often managed to secure an influential role in moulding employment policy. Even so, the model has not been accepted everywhere, and some countries have seriously curtailed union rights for public sector workers. And even where the more robust union rights model has been well established, it has undergone dramatic transformation in recent years, as not only are workers’ rights under attack, but service provision is being slashed around the world. In this edition of IUR, we are concerned with restrictions on trade union rights for public sector workers, particularly those falling into ‘State administration’ or ‘essential service’ roles. A number of our articles concern workers who do not obviously fall into these classifications, most notably teachers, but either States have attempted to class them as falling into these categories, or States have restricted their rights as though they fell into these categories. Efforts by States to exempt groups of workers from core trade union rights and to reclassify certain groups has created a complicated picture, where worker categorisation is a recurring issue, even where the answer seems well established at the international level. From Germany, the GEW report for IUR on the campaign to overturn a total ban on strike action for teachers, based on their classification as civil servants. The effects of the ban seem clearly at odds with the ILO position. GEW believe an answer may lie with the European Court of Human Rights. But teachers are not alone in facing this kind of misclassification and rights restriction. Other contributions to this edition concern local government workers, firefighters, prison officers, and a host of other public sector occupational groups, all subjected to vague and arbitrary limitations on their rights. Yukihiro Nomura from Japan and Du-seop Kwon of South Korea report on excessive restrictions on even basic organising rights, including the ongoing campaign for firefighter organising rights in Japan, based on the Government’s claim that they are part of the police. The total ban on firefighter unions in Japan can be contrasted with the strength of organisation in the UK, after a century of firefighter union activism. Even here, however, FBU leader Matt Wracks notes that recent years have seen the fire and rescue service in the UK ‘battered by the economic downturn and by central government austerity’, with these service cuts matched by increasing intervention in trade union rights, and restrictions on strike action. Is the attack on both service provision and labour rights mere coincidence, or are they aspects of the same struggle, between people and capitalism? Neoliberal policies such as privatisation, liberalised labour laws, new models for assessing performance and austerity measures have torn up the old model. Privatisation has variously stripped unions of either or both bargaining rights and membership levels, and has undermined the effectiveness of social dialogue and employment policy setting models. Precarious working and casualisation are now reported across the public sector, leading to an increase in part-time, temporary, informal, and contracted workers. There is increasing use private sector labour law; temporary public servants, agency workers, and the use of performance incentives and evaluations typical of the private sector, fuelling a degradation of overall working conditions that has been matched by a downgrading, under austerity, of public services, weakening public service delivery. David Hecker says that in Michigan, and across the US, the attacks on union rights and falling quality of service provision are not a coincidence… Next issue of IUR Articles between 850 and 1800 words should be sent by email (mail@ictur.org) and accompanied by a photograph and short biographical note of the author. Please send by 19 June 2019 if they are to be considered for publication in the next issue of...

U.S. Labor and the Neoliberal Turn

U.S. Labor and the Neoliberal Turn Ruth Milkman (bio) Timothy J. Minchin. Labor under Fire: A History of the AFL-CIO since 1979. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2017. xiv + 414 pp. Notes, bibliography and index. $39.95. Lane Windham. Knocking on Labor's Door: Union Organizing in the 1970s and the Roots of a New Economic Divide, 2017. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2017. xiv + 295 pp. Figures, table, appendix, notes, bibliography and index. $32.95. Despite the downward spiral of union membership and power during the period they explore, these two fine studies of late twentieth century U.S. labor history both are surprisingly optimistic. Minchin provides a straightforward institutional history of the AFL-CIO starting in 1979, the last year of George Meany's 24-year reign at the organization's helm, up to just before the 2016 U.S. presidential election. His main sources are the Federation's archives, where he studied many documents not previously exploited by scholars, and sixty original interviews with AFL-CIO leaders and staffers. Perhaps because of his extensive reliance on this material, Minchin's narrative largely reflects the viewpoint of the D.C. labor establishment and at times uncritically reproduces the official "glass half full" perspective that its spokespersons often promote. Windham was an AFL-CIO staffer herself for a decade prior to embarking on an academic career (indeed she was one of Minchin's interviewees), but her approach is quite different, focusing primarily on rank-and-file workers. She carefully reconstructs four union organizing drives that took place in the 1970s, none of which have been previously documented in any detail. All four involved categories of workers who had been influenced by the social movements of the 1960s: women, young workers, and African Americans. Windham's optimism is rooted in her finding that workers were eager to unionize when they had the opportunity to do so, despite rapidly increasing employer resistance. Although Minchin and Windham focus on distinctly different levels of labor movement activity and slightly different time periods, both inquiries shed new light on the ways in which the neoliberal turn affected American [End Page 125] unions. They both argue that although the neoliberal juggernaut of deregulation, globalization and market fundamentalism took off in the 1970s, most U.S. unions did not feel its effects until after the 1980 presidential election. "While some of the roots of the AFL-CIO's problems in the Kirkland-Sweeney era did lie in the 1970s … the climate really changed after 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected president," Minchin declares (p. 10). Windham concurs, citing National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) data to support her argument that in the 1970s, "Workers kept voting in union elections at generally the same pace as during the 1950s and 1960s, the heyday of American labor," adding that "the precipitous drop off in organizing efforts did not happen until the early 1980s." (pp. 3–4) U.S. government data support this periodization as well: the private-sector unionization rate declined from 24.2 percent in 1973 to 20.1 percent in 1980, but went into free fall during the 1980s, plummeting to 11.9 percent by 1990. (The decline continued thereafter, reaching 6.5 percent in 2017.) To be sure, union membership erosion began much earlier, soon after the 1955 merger of the AFL and CIO, when 35 percent of workers were union members (almost all in the private sector). As Minchin emphasizes, the AFL-CIO's political influence lasted longer and had greater potency than these membership data might lead one to expect. In part, this is a reflection of the the continuing strength of organized labor in the public sector. There the unionization rate was 35.9 percent in 1980 and dipped only slightly in the decades that followed, to 34.4 percent in 2017. Neither Minchin nor Windham pays much attention to public-sector unions, however. And their ability to bolster AFL-CIO political efforts may be greatly diminished as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, which upended previous case law to prohibit public-sector unions from collecting "agency...