Public-Sector Unions and Government Policy: The Effects of Political Contributions and Collective Bargaining Rights

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
George R. Crowley ◽  
Scott Beaulier
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Government Policy ◽  
Political Contributions ◽  
Public Sector Unions

scholarly journals Public-sector Unions and Government Policy

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 454-485
Author(s):  
George R. Crowley ◽  
Scott A. Beaulier
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Government Policy ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Public Employment ◽  
Political Contributions ◽  
Public Sector Union ◽  
Public Sector Unions ◽  
State And Local ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Shed Light

Recent events, including the failed recall of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and the Chicago teachers strike, have shed light on the relationship between state fiscal policy and public-sector union power. While a literature has developed focusing on various aspects of the link between public-sector unions and government policy, scholars have yet to reach consensus. In most cases, public-sector unions have multiple tools they can use to influence policy. We find that union political contributions and collective bargaining are associated with higher incomes for state and local employees and with higher public employment, both across state and local governments overall as well as within the education sector. We also find relatively little evidence that union activity influences total spending.

scholarly journals An Exploration into Challenges Facing Public Sector Labor Relations: A Literature Review and Analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Chambers
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Labor Relations ◽  
Labor Management ◽  
Public Managers ◽  
Public Sector Unions ◽  
Union History

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.

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

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexis N. Walker
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Labor Law ◽  
Union Density ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private Sector Union ◽  
Public Sector Employees ◽  
Public Sector Unions

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.

scholarly journals The Politics of Austerity and the Conservative Offensive against US Public Sector Unions, 2008-2012

2012 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 612-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Étienne Cantin
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Great Recession ◽  
Public Employees ◽  
Conservative Movement ◽  
The Great Recession ◽  
Public Sector Unions ◽  
Economic Developments ◽  
Government Workers ◽  
Political Economic

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.

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

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-174
Author(s):  
Daniel Chigudu
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Democratic Governance ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The Public ◽  
Personal Benefit ◽  
Public Sector Employees ◽  
Public Sector Unions ◽  
The Government ◽  
Public Sector Unionism

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.

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

2016 ◽  
Vol 110 (4) ◽  
pp. 763-777 ◽  
Author(s):  
SARAH F. ANZIA ◽  
TERRY M. MOE
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Empirical Analysis ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Theoretical Argument ◽  
Labor Laws ◽  
Public Sector Unions ◽  
The 1960S

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.

scholarly journals Public Sector Bargaining

2004 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph B. Rose
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Public Employment ◽  
Economic Expansion ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Public Sector Unions ◽  
Three Stages ◽  
Catch Up ◽  
Public Sector Bargaining

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.

Teacher Unionism in the 20th-Century United States

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Mertz
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Air Traffic ◽  
Teacher Unions ◽  
Public Servants ◽  
Air Traffic Controllers ◽  
Public Sector Unions ◽  
Teacher Unionism

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.

Getting it Right: Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications from Research on Public-Sector Unionism and Collective Bargaining

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Lewin ◽  
Thomas A. Kochan ◽  
Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld ◽  
Teresa Ghilarducci ◽  
Harry C. C. Katz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Public Sector Unionism
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document