Sector Labor-management Research Articles

The Ebb and Flow of Federal Sector Labor-Management Relations Policies under Four Successive Presidents

Federal sector labor-management relations policies ebb and flow with changes in presidential administrations. As the nation’s Chief Executive, the president exercises considerable influence over both policy and practice in this domain. We review the relevant policies of four successive presidents (Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, and Trump) on seven dimensions, comparing them to the existing Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS). To put the presidents’ policies into broader context, we show how they correspond with the presidents’ expressed or implied views on public administration, management, and labor-management relations. We find considerable variation across the presidents, which correlate with political party and ideology. The reality is that policy and practice in this area are politically moving targets. We discuss the implications of our findings for labor and management.

Introduction to “The Ebb and Flow of Federal Sector Labor-Management Relations Policies Under Four Successive Presidents”

Introduction to “The Ebb and Flow of Federal Sector Labor-Management Relations Policies Under Four Successive Presidents”

The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Steelworkers Trilogy: Some Reflections on Judicial Review of Labor Arbitration Decisions - Will Gold Turn to Rust?

In 1960, in the landmark Steelworkers Trilogy, the United States Supreme Court enthusiastically endorsed arbitration of grievances in private sector labor management relations. As a means of efficient and effective dispute resolution, labor arbitration was perceived as far superior to external litigation in court; labor arbitration was, and is, quicker and less expensive than most litigation. Over the course of the past half-century, the Supreme Court has reiterated and reaffirmed the classic benchmark principles of judicial deference to labor arbitration that the Court unequivocally elucidated in the Trilogy. With increasing frequency, however, some activist judges on the lower federal courts are seemingly predisposed to vacate labor arbitration decisions simply because the judge does not like the particular substantive result of the particular labor arbitration decision. This propensity of some of the lower federal courts to set aside labor arbitration decisions reached its zenith (or nadir, depending on one’s perspective) in the Sixth Circuit in 2006. This essay examines the Sixth Circuit experience with some particularity, analyzing what that Circuit’s pre and post 2006 practical experience and jurisprudence may auger for the future of labor arbitration, and of Alternative Dispute Resolution more broadly, in this 50th anniversary year of the Steelworkers Trilogy.

Labor Contract Formation, Tenuous Torts, and the Realpolitik of Justice Sotomayor on the 50th Anniversary of the Steelworkers Trilogy: Granite Rock v. Teamsters

Since its passage in 1947, the Supreme Court has understood Section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act as a Congressional mandate to create a body of federal common law regulating private sector labor management disputes arising out of collective bargaining agreements. In light of this established labor law jurisprudence and the 50th anniversary of the landmark Steel Workers Trilogy, this past Term Granite Rock v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters opted for stability, declining to recognize a federal tort claim arising under Section 301(a). The Court was anything but definitive, deeming it premature to consider the tort dimension. This article focuses especially on why the Court should have taken the opportunity to define whether Section 301(a)’s scope extended to tort claims.

The future of public sector labor-management relations: Part III-challenges to unions

The future of public sector labor-management relations: Part III-challenges to unions

The future of public sector labor-management relations: Part II — The federal sector

The future of public sector labor-management relations: Part II — The federal sector

The future of public sector labor-management relations

The future of public sector labor-management relations

Innovative union driven partnerships with management within the U. S. A.

This is a short report on an innovative private sector, multi-union, labor-management partnership, and on developments in public sector labor-management partnerships within the U. S. A. Broader implications for social partnerships are explored.

The Federal Sector Mediation and Labor Management Relations Process: The Federal Sector Management Experience

The investigative scope of this article centers on the critical point of time in collective bargaining negotiations in the federal sector at which an im passe is reached and a mediator is summoned. Standing at the critical point in time, an analytic look can be taken backward at the difficulties of Federal sector negotiators and forward at the related difficulties of mediators. A brief historical review of the Federal sector's labor-management relations is provided here to emphasize the profound changes established by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) in 1978.

Formal Discussions in Federal Labor Relations-A Case of Goal Deflection

Federal government operations in the 1980s are costly. Big dollar items like the B-1 bomber or the MX missile command political debates get intense media attention, and some expert research. Often overlooked, however, are more technical, seemingly innocuous aspects of statutes which may have profound costs and adverse operating consequences. This paper focuses on one such statutory provision: the discussion requirement of the federal labormanagement relations (LMR) program. This provision has been implemented in a manner unintended by those who crafted it in 1962. It has escaped careful scrutiny in three major revisions of the federal program even when other provisions of which it was a part were eliminated. It is an expensive requirement which has been largely ignored by politicians and public administration experts alike, including authors of in-depth histories of the federal LMR program.' Yet, if administered to the full extent required by current legal case decisions interpreting the meaning of discussion, its costs have been estimated to be as high as $100 million per year.2 Additionally, a 1984 survey reveals that managers and agency labor relations advisors uniformly regard the provision as an operational nightmare.' As indicated in Figure 1, case decisions applying the provision to work situations are in substantial conflict on a variety of crucial issues. Consequently, most managers surveyed indicated that it is difficult to decide which interactions with employees constitute a formal discussion. How did this situation develop? How did this provision get to where it is today with no careful evaluation of its implications? This paper describes and analyzes the history of the discussion requirement from a public policy perspective with particular emphasis on program implementation and evaluation. The study of the particular statutory provision has important implications for the legislative process in general and for the costs associated with public sector labor-management relations programs in particular. The study also describes how a narrow technical provision can profoundly impact supervisory management processes. * History of the discussion provision of Title VII of the U.S. Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 offers valuable information about the lawmaking process, especially in the area of labor-management relations policy. This study examines the problems associated with implementation of the provision. It reveals that no correlation exists between current practices and the intent of the originators of the provision in 1962. More importantly, the study describes how technical statutory language of a cryptic nature can escape careful congressional scrutiny. The import is no small matter. Parallel research demonstrates that the provision is costly and creates significant operating problems for managers and supervisors.

Public Sector Labor Relations: Agent of Change in American Industrial Relations?

A growing number of observers of industrial relations in the United States are becoming con vinced that broad changes are occurring which will have a major effect on the labor-management relations system. This article looks at the major changes and suggests that one consequence may be the emergence of the public sector as the area where pace-setting innovations could occur. Minimal ly, it is argued, public sector labor-management relations will no longer have "the bridesmaid and never the bride" status with respect to industrial relations practice and scholarship.