Labor Relations in the Public Sector pptx

Handbook on Public Personnel Administration and Labor Relations, edited by Jack Rabin, Thomas Vocino, W.. Handbook of Public Sector Labor Relations, edited by Jack Rabin, Thomas Vocino,

in the

Public Sector

A Comprehensive Publication Program

Executive Editor

JACK RABIN

Professor of Public Administration and Public Policy

School of Public AffairsThe Capital CollegeThe Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg

Middletown, Pennsylvania

1 Public Administration as a Developing Disci[91ine (in two parts), Robert Golembiewski

2 Comparative National Policies on Health Care, Milton I Roemer, M.D

3 Exclusionary Injustice: The Problem of Illegally Obtained Evidence, Steven

R Schlesinger

4 Personnel Management in Government: Politics and Process, Jay M.

Shafritz, Walter L Balk, Albert C Hyde, and David H Rosenbloom

5 Organization Development in Public Administration (in two parts), edited Robert T Golembiewski and William B Eddy

6 Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded, Ferrel Heady

7 Approaches to Planned Change (in two parts), Robert T Golembiewski

8 Program Evaluation at HEW (in three parts), edited by James G Abert

9 The States and the Metropolis, Patricia S Florestano and Vincent L.

Marando

10 Personnel Management in Govemment: Politics and Process, Second tion, Revised and Expanded, Jay M Shafritz, Albert C Hyde, and David H.Rosenbloom

Edi-11 Changing Bureaucracies: Understanding the Organization Before Selecting the Approach, William A Medina

12 Handbook on Public Budgeting and Financial Management, edited by JackRabin and Thomas D Lynch

13 Encyclopedia of Policy Studies, edited by Stuart S Nagel

14 Public Administration and Law: Bench v Bureau in the United States, David

H Rosenbloom

15 Handbook on Public Personnel Administration and Labor Relations, edited

by Jack Rabin, Thomas Vocino, W Bartley Hildreth, and Gerald J Miller

16 Public Budgeting and Finance: Behavioral, Theoretical, and Technical spectives, Third Edition, edited by Robert T Golembiewski and Jack Rabin

Per-17 Organizational Behavior and Public Management, Debra W Stewart and G.David Garson

18 The Politics of Terrorism: Second Edition, Revised and Expanded, edited byMichael Stohl

21 Labor Relations in the Public Sector, Richard C Kearney

22 Politics and Administration: Woodrow Wilson and American Public ministration, edited by Jack Rabin and James S Bowman

Ad-23 Making and Managing Policy: Formulation, Analysis, Evaluation, edited by G.Ronald Gilbert

24 Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, Third Edition, Revised,

Ferrel Heady

25 Decision Making in the Public Sector, edited by Lloyd G Nigro

26 Managing Administration, edited by Jack Rabin, Samuel Humes, and Brian

31 Handbook of Information Resource Management, edited by Jack Rabin andEdward M Jackowski

32 Public Administration in Developed Democracies: A Comparative Study,

edited by Donald C Rowat

33 The Politics of Terrorism: Third Edition, Revised and Expanded, edited byMichael Stohl

34 Handbook on Human Services Administration, edited by Jack Rabin and

Marcia B Steinhauer

35 Handbook of Public Administration, edited by Jack Rabin, W Bartley

Hildreth, and Gerald J Miller

36 Ethics for Bureaucrats: An Essay on Law and Values, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded, John A Rohr

37 The Guide to the Foundations of Public Administration, Daniel W Martin

38 Handbook of Strategic Management, edited by Jack Rabin, Gerald J Miller,and W Bartley Hildreth

39 Terrorism and Emergency Management: Policy and Administration, William

43 Government Financial Management Theory, Gerald J Miller

44 Personnel Management in Govemment: Pofitics and Process, Fourth Edition, Revised and Expanded, Jay M Shafritz, Norma M Riccucci, David H.Rosenbloom, and Albert C Hyde

45 Public Productivity Handbook, edited by Marc Holzer

46 Handbook of Public Budgeting, edited by Jack Rabin

47 Labor Relations in the Public Sectoc Second Edition, Revised and panded, Richard C Kearney

Ex-Hays and Cole Blease Graham, Jr.

50 Handbook of Comparative Public Budgeting and Financial Management,

edited by Thomas D Lynch and Lawrence L Martin

51 Handbook of Organizational Behavior, edited by Robert T Golembiewski

52 Handbook of Administrative Ethics, edited by Terry L Cooper

53 Encyclopedia of Policy Studies: Second Edition, Revised and Expanded,

edited by Stuart S Nagel

54 Handbook of Regulation and Administrative Law, edited by David H.

Rosenbloom and Richard D Schwartz

55 Handbook of Bureaucracy, edited by Ali Farazmand

56 Handbook of Public Sector Labor Relations, edited by Jack Rabin, Thomas

Vocino, W Bartley Hildreth, and Gerald J Miller

57 Practical Public Management, Robert T Golembiewski

58 Handbook of Public Personnel Administration, edited by Jack Rabin, ThomasVocino, W Bartley Hildreth, and Gerald J Miller

59 Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, Fifth Edition, Ferrel

Heady

60 Handbook of Debt Management, edited by Gerald J Miller

61 Public Administration and Law: Second Edition, David H Rosenbioom andRosemary O’Leary

62 Handbook of Local Govemment Administration, edited by John J Gargan

63 Handbook of Administrative Communication, edited by James L Garnett andAlexander Kouzmin

64 Public Budgeting and Finance: Fourth Edition, Revised and Expanded,

edited by Robert T Golembiewski and Jack Rabin

65 Handbook of Public Administration: Second Edition, edited by Jack Rabin,

W Bartley Hildreth, and Gerald J Miller

66 Handbook of Organization Theory and Management: The Philosophical Approach, edited by Thomas D Lynch and Todd J Dicker

67 Handbook of Public Finance, edited by Fred Thompson and Mark T Green

68 Organizational Behavior and Public Management: Third Edition, Revised and Expanded, Michael L Vasu, Debra W Stewart, and G David Garson

69 Handbook of Economic Development, edited by Kuotsai Tom Liou

70 Handbook of Health Administration and Policy, edited by Anne Osborne patrick and James A Johnson

Kil-71 Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration, edited by Gerald J.Miller and Marcia L Whicker

72 Handbook on Taxation, edited by W Bartley Hildreth and James A son

Richard-73 Handbook of Comparative Public Administration in the Asia-Pacific Basin,

edited by Hoi-kwok Wong and Hon S Chan

74 Handbook of Global Environmental Policy and Administration, edited by

Dennis L Soden and Brent S Steel

75 Handbook of State Govemment Administration, edited by John J Gargan

76 Handbook of Global Legal Policy, edited by Stuart S Nagel

77 Handbook of Public Information Systems, edited by G David Garson

78 Handbook of Global Economic Policy, edited by Stuart S Nagel

79 Handbook of Strategic Management: Second Edition, Revised and panded, edited by Jack Rabin, Gerald J Miller, and W Bartley Hildreth

Ex-80 Handbook of Global International Policy, edited by Stuart S Nagel

82 Handbook of Global Political Policy, edited by Stuart S Nagel

83 Handbook of Global Technology Policy, edited by Stuart S Nagel

84 Handbook of Criminal Justice Administration, edited by Toni

DuPont-Morales, Michael K Hooper, and Judy H Schmidt

85 Labor Relations in the Public Sector’ Third Edition, edited by Richard C.Kearney

Additional Volumes in Preparation Handbook of Global Social Policy, edited by Stuart S Nagel and Amy Robb

Handbook of Organizational Behavioc Second Edition, Revised and panded, edited by Robert T Golembiewski

Ex-Handbook of Administrative Ethics: Second Edition, Revised and Expanded,

edited by Terry L Cooper

Handbook of Public Quality Management, edited by Ronald J Stupak andPeter M Leitner

Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management, edited by Ali Farazmand

Handbook of Public Management Practice and Reform, edited by Kuotsai

Personnel Management in Govemment: Politics and Process, Fifth Edition,

Jay M Shafritz, Norma M Riccucci, David H Rosenbloom, Katherine C.Naff, and Albert C Hyde

1 Public Administration: History and Theory in Contemporary Perspective,

edited by Joseph A Uveges, Jr

2 Public Administration Education in Transition, edited by Thomas Vocino andRichard Heimovics

3 Centenary Issues of the Pendleton Act of 1883, edited by David Ho

Ro-senbloom with the assistance of Mark A Emmert

4 Intergovemmental Relations in the 1980s, edited by Richard H Leach

5 Criminal Justice Administration: Linking Practice and Research, edited byWilliam A Jones, Jr

in the Public Sector Third Edition

MARCEL

MARCEL DEKKER, INC. NEW YO~,K ¯ BASEL

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Headquarters

Marcel Dekker, Inc.

270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016

Copyright © 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc All Rights Reserved.

Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording,

or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Current printing (last digit):

1098765432

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Unions seem to be perpetually at a crossroads Those in the private sector havesuffered membership declines for more than 45 years and, even under the dy-namic leadership of AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, they will be hard-pressed

to reverse the powerful tide against unions in the private sector In government,union membership has been stagnant since the 1980s Although there have beensome positive incremental changes in the state legal environment for collectivebargaining, no new comprehensive bargaining laws have been enacted since

1992 Meanwhile, fundamental restructuring of private and public organizationsand the processes they use to conduct their business have been occurring at anever-increasing rate Globalization of labor and markets has profoundly chal-lenged unions in the business sector For their counterparts in government, contin-uing citizen resistance to government taxing and spending, joined with the move-ment to reinvent government, have posed new challenges that provide both threatsand opportunities In any event, managing in a union environment is a realityfor approximately 40% of public managers, and unions remain key political ac-tors in the federal government and in a large proportion of state and local jurisdic-tions

The third edition of Labor Relations in the Public Sector has been

com-pletely updated in terms of the scholarly and professional literature and relevantevents Collective bargaining and labor relations are addressed at all levels ofgovernment, with comparisons to the private and nonprofit sectors The Rein-venting Government Movement has been incorporated into several chapters In-terest-based ("win-win") negotiation is a prominent theme in discussions of thebargaining process and contract administration The third edition features several

iii

new case studies that are intended to provide students with experiential learningexercises.

There have been two changes in the organization of the book The initialchapter on the history and development of unions has been separated into two newchapters: "History and Background" and "The Unions Today." The chapter inthe previous edition on the bargaining process has also been divided into two:

"Fundamentals of the Bargaining Process" and "The Process and Politics ofPublic Sector Collective Bargaining." These modifications facilitate inclusion ofnew materials and improve the flow and organization of the book

The third edition is designed to be more classroom-friendly than earlierversions As before, the book is intended for use in graduate and undergraduatecourses in labor relations, collective bargaining, human resource management,and problems in public administration

Contributing to the book for the first time is David G Camevale of theUniversity of Oklahoma Dr Carnevale has extensive experience in labor rela-tions and collective bargaining His involvement has significantly strengthenedthe third edition by lending the insights of a practitioner

I appreciate the comments and suggestions of professors and students whohave used earlier editions of the book Thanks also go to Arevik Saribekyanand Rodney Rose, MPA students at East Carolina University, who helped gatherinformation and materials for the third edition A special thanks to Kathy Morgan,who prepared the index As always, I am indebted to Kathy and Joel for theirlove and support

Richard C Kearney

1 History and Background

2 The Unions Today

3 The Legal Environment of Public Sector Labor Relations

4 Fundamentals of the Bargaining Process

5 The Process and Politics of Public Sector Collective Bargaining

6 Financial Impacts of Unions and Collective Bargaining

7 Union Impacts: Personnel Processes and Policies

8 Strike!

9 Resolving Impasses: Alternatives to the Strike

10 Living with the Contract

11 Public Employee Unions in the Future

379

in the

Public Sector

History and Background

As the industrial revolution dawned in England in the mid-eighteenth century, theemployer’s authority was absolute, and completely free from laws or governmentregulations Employers unilaterally determined wages and the terms and condi-tions of employment for their workers As a practical matter, all but the mostskilled workers had to take jobs as they came, with little or no opportunity toinfluence compensation levels or the nature of the work Early efforts to formtrade unions were violently suppressed by laws forbidding organization as a crim-inal conspiracy in restraint of trade

It was a long hard struggle for employees in England and Europe to gainthe fights to organize and bargain collectively and it took nearly 200 years inthe United States Today these fights are held in nearly all nations Labor, in thissense, is triumphant But unions in the United States today face new sets ofproblems and challenges, the outcomes of which could well determine their veryexistence in the next few decades

The intent of this initial chapter is to discuss the history and development

of unionization and collective bargaining in the private sector and in government.The roots of government unions are traced through an historical examination ofthe American trade union movement The development of public sector unioniza-tion is examined, including key factors that contributed to the growth of unions

in government

Labor organizations have existed in the United States since the earliest days ofthe Republic The environment within which they have been created and grown,however, has not always been friendly or even tolerant

The earliest domestic roots of American unionism may be traced to theself-help organizations formed by workers in the crafts and skilled trades prior

to the Revolutionary War These organizations were, in a sense, transplants of

the European guilds Probably the first guild to develop in the United States wasthe cordwainers (shoemakers) in 1648 in Boston (Commons 1980) This guildeventually evolved into what some historians believe to be the first Americantrade union The Society of Master Cordwainers The guilds were not true

"unions" in that there was no separation of labor between worker and owner.Nonetheless, workers were united in a common cause of self-protection

The early American labor organizations were based on handicraft nologies like shoe making, stone cutting, carpentry, hat finishing, and printing.Their membership was composed of skilled laborers organized along the lines

tech-of individual crafts Today, such organizations are known as craft unions It is notsurprising that organized labor began with highly skilled, strategically situatedworkers, as they were the first to enjoy what is referred to today as bargainingpower

Public policy toward early labor organizations may be characterized as one

of suppression They had no legal basis for existence and were considered nal conspiracies in restraint of trade" under common law This criminal conspir-acy doctrine emerged from a court case involving the cordwainers, in which ajudge ruled it illegal for Philadelphia shoemakers to act collectively in efforts toraise their wages Several of the early craft unions were prosecuted for criminalconspiracy until the doctrine was ended by the Massachusetts court decision of

"crimi-Commonwealth v Hunt (1842), which held that such organized union activities

were lawful

Some local labor organizations entered the political arena during the 1820sand 1830s through affiliating with "workingmen’s parties." They pressedCongress and state legislatures for job-related concessions such as the 10-hourday, and also for broader reforms such as free universal education, an end to themilitary draft, abolition of debtor’s prisons, and expansion of suffrage Many

of these organizations, which were strongest in large cities such as New Yorkand Philadelphia, even took a short-lived step towards national organization

in 1834 by forming the National Trades Union to coordinate activities of thelocals

It was during this same time period (1820s to 1830s) that labor tions began to penetrate public employment, as public workers in skilled occupa-tions sought the 10-hour day won in some cities by their private counterparts.Most of this activity was concentrated in federal naval shipyards in Philadelphia,Boston, and New York Later, when agitation for the 8-hour work day began,the first employer to grant it was the federal government, at the Charleston, SouthCarolina, Navy Yard in 1842 According to Spero (1948:87), the drive for the8-hour day "led to the crystallization of the principle of the state as a modelemployer maintaining the highest possible working standards in its services as

organiza-an example for others to follow."

During this early period of growth and development, unions’ organizationalhealth was highly dependent on national economic conditions; unions sufferedduring hard times and revived during more prosperous times For example, therewas a tremendous increase in union membership during the Civil War and imme-diately afterward as a consequence of industrial growth related to the war effort.The Depression of 1873, however, was accompanied by a startling decline innational union membership from 300,000 to 50,600 within five years By 1885,improved economic conditions pushed membership growth back to the 300,000mark The direct relationship between economic tailspins and union membershipdeclines did not endure during the 20th Century Unions suffered during the pros-perous 1920s, and made their most spectacular gains during the Great Depressionera of the 1930s.

Nonetheless, economic conditions continue to influence union fortunes day For instance, when unemployment is low and consumer demand for products

to-is high, employers tend to accommodate employee demands, even the demandfor unions Concurrently, risk-taking union advocates find it relatively easy tolocate new jobs if they are fired Thus, unionism is likely to flourish during favor-able economic conditions The opposite argument applies for periods of highunemployment and a weak economy (Reder 1988:92-93) In both situations, course, many other factors also influence union growth In the past three decades,private sector unions have struggled with membership losses during good eco-nomic times and bad

Even though labor organizations could no longer be legally prosecuted for

criminal conspiracy in restraint of trade after the 1842 Commonwealth v Hunt

decision, this did not by any means signal a new era of tolerance and ment of unionism Bitter union-management battles erupted during the 1870s.Employer "union-busting" tactics such as lockouts, espionage, blacklisting ofunion organizers, summary firings of "agitators," and, in order to break strikes,club-swinging "goon squads," forced some unions to go underground and oper-ate as secret societies One of these societies the Molly Maguires, formed byanthracite coal miners met employer violence with violence of its own in perpe-trating acts of arson and murder in the Pennsylvania coal mines

encourage-Many opposing union philosophies competed for the allegiance of theAmerican working class during the late 1800s and early 1900s Some groupssought victories through the political process while others advocated collectivebargaining Most organizations wanted to operate and pursue their goals withinthe boundaries of the capitalist system, but others spoke out in favor of the emerg-ing European philosophies of socialism and communism

Perhaps the strongest of the leftist groups was the Industrial Workers ofthe World (IWW), which rejected capitalism outright and strove to organize theworking class, take control of the State, and overturn the capitalist system

Founded in 1905 by radical socialists and syndicalists, whose penchant for a goodfight took precedence over "planning, negotiating, and politiking [sic]" (Stegner1990:13), the "Wobblies" enjoyed their greatest strength among mining, lumber-ing, and agricultural workers in the western states of Idaho, Colorado, and Utah.(The nickname reportedly was taken from a Chinese cook’s pronunciation ofIWW as "I wobble wobble") The Wobblies committed numerous acts of indus-trial sabotage and were successful in leading several large strikes in the UnitedStates and other countries during the First World War Many martyrs were pro-duced along the way, including the legendary Joe Hill, who, just before his exe-cution in 1915, cried to his fellow Wobblies, "Don’t waste time mourning, or-ganize!" But severe repression by the federal government including theincarceration and lynching of union leaders such as Joe Hill and the lack ofbroad appeal of IWW philosophies to the American working class, led to thedemise of the organization shortly after the War (see Galenson 1980 for conven-tional treatment) The Wobblies’ utopian vision of "one big union" for the work-ers of the world remains an historical curiosity to all except a handful of diehardswho in the late 1980s sought to revive the IWW through the international peacemovement (for current information on this unique organization, see the IWWwebsite at: www.IWW.org).

Other labor organizations on the ideological far left have enjoyed somesupport in the United States, including the Farm Equipment Workers, Tobaccoand Allied Workers, United Office and Professional Workers, and the Fisher-man’s Union Two communist unions even managed to survive the McCarthy-erarepression of the 1950s: the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’sUnion and the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers But a number

of factors have conspired to mitigate socialist- and communist-oriented labororganizations in the United States The rigid class structures of Europe have neverdeveloped in the United States to set the boundaries for class conflict, largelybecause of the rapid economic growth of the country, a relatively high standard

of living for the working people, fairly steady economic growth with the nity for individual advancement, and the diverse ethnic and religious characteris-tics of American immigrants From a political perspective, organized labor hasbeen hemmed in by the absence of a labor-based political party and by actions

opportu-of federal and state courts that have constricted the boundaries opportu-of union politicaland organizing activities (Galenson 1980:73-79; Forbath 1991)

The real battles within the labor movement in the United States have notbeen fought over questions of political ideology, but over the issues of whichtypes of workers should be organized and by whom The ethos of business union-ism, as originally professed by Samuel Gompers, has dominated the Americanlabor movement throughout this century Economic objectives and improvements

in working conditions have served as the primary objectives of trade unionism,

not social and political change Theories of the labor movement in the UnitedStates reflect the early ascendancy of business unionism, asserting that Americanworkers have joined unions for job security (Tannenbaum 1921), out of a concernfor the scarcity of job opportunities (Perlman 1928), as a means for democratizingthe workplace (Webb and Webb 1897), as a result of expansion of the job marketfrom increased industrialization (Commons and Associates 1936), from a crystal-lization of group interests arising from workers’ social and economic situations(Hoxie 1928), and in response to various monetary and fringe benefits incentives(Olson 1965) The Marxist philosophy that unions form the locus of a workingclass consciousness and serve as the basis for restricting competition over jobshas never been widely accepted in the United States.

As already noted, the earliest organizing efforts were among the craftunions Heavy industrialization, which began during the mid-1800s, provided anew and rapidly growing industrial labor force of nonskilled and semiskilledworkers who were not trade or craft oriented Organization of this new pool ofworkers would have to be along shop lines, based on the place of work ratherthan on the type of work The Knights of Labor made the first significant effort

to capture this segment of the work force

Formed in 1869 as a craft union for custom tailors in Philadelphia, theKnights gradually began to include other crafts under its organizational umbrella

By 1878 it had evolved into the first national labor union in the United States.The following year the Knights dropped its status as a secret society, and underthe leadership of an affable Irishman named Terence V Powderly, began to seekboth craft and industrial affiliates throughout the country By the time of its suc-cessful 1886 strike against financier Jay Gould and the Wabash Railroad, theKnights claimed a membership of 700,000 The Knights’ membership was some-what unstable and divisive, however, and a subsequent series of ill-conceivedstrikes led to one defeat after another for the union By the turn of the centurythe Knights of Labor was nearly extinct Further organization of unskilled work-ers awaited the development of the Congress of Industrial Organizations in the1930s

The remaining craft union pieces of the complex Knights of Labor zational mosaic were quickly gathered up by the American Federation of Labor(AFL), which was originally formed in 1881 in Pittsburgh as a federation forskilled craft workers The 25 national craft union affiliates elected Samuel Gom-pers, head of the Cigar Makers Union, as their first president The ultimate prag-matist, Gompers soon made the AFL a major actor in the American economicsystem Gompers was, in essence, a free marketeer who rejected philosophical,political, and social issues in favor of an almost laissez-faire labor environment.Under his leadership the AFL grew steadily, surviving both the depression of

organi-1893 to 1896 and a violent strike that broke the back of one of the AFL locals

at the Carnegie Steel Company in Homestead, Pennsylvania The AFL alsoproved strong enough to withstand the scientific management movement of Fred-erick W Taylor, court injunctions against strikes and other union actions, andyears of stifling "yellow-dog contracts" (a contract in which a worker promisednot to join a union while under the hire of an employer) There were, however,some dark times, particularly following World War I and during the early years

of the Great Depression

The AFL’s resurgence after the Great Depression was, in the words ofSloane and Witney (1981:75-76), "in spite of itself," as the union "almostsnatched defeat from the jaws of victory." A leadership gap was part of theproblem (Gompers had died), but more to blame was the union’s continuingreactionary posture against mass production workers whom the Knights of Laborhad first tried to organize The AFL’s unrelenting refusal to allow nonskilled,noncraft workers into the organization eventually prompted a secessionist move-ment steered by John L Lewis of the United Mine Workers, after his efforts togain affiliation for industrial workers failed at the 1935 AFL convention in Atlan-tic City Lewis did not exit that convention meekly According to Sloane andWitney (1981:77), "Lewis, never one to camouflage his emotions for the sake

of good fellowship with his AFL colleagues, left Atlantic City only after landing

a severe uppercut to the jaw of Carpenter Union president William L son " Lewis then formed his own industrial union, the Committee for Indus-trial Organization, later called the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).There followed another, later attempt to affiliate under the AFL banner, but itculminated in the expulsion of CIO leaders and the more than 30 national unionsthat had joined forces with the CIO

Hutche-The independent CIO was highly successful in organizing industrial ers, such as those in the automobile and steel industries, so much so that the AFLfinally recognized the error of its ways and itself began competing for unskilledworkers Not to be outdone, the CIO turned its own efforts to the organization

work-of craft workers In 1955, after years work-of interunion conflict and competition, theAFL merged permanently with the CIO, becoming "the united house of labor."The labor battles had been fought not over political ideology or competinggrand visions of American society, but over organizing workers and the mundanebread-and-butter issues that today remain paramount: wages, fringe benefits,working conditions, and job security To George Meany, as well as to the othermainstream labor leaders, ideology was "baloney" (Sloane and Witney 1981:94) Unions became active in the political arena during the 1960s and remain sotoday, pressing a broad national agenda for social betterment with varying de-grees of success (see Boyle 1998) However, no coherent ideology is apparent.Ironically, the year following the AFL-CIO merger marked the beginning

of a long and continuous decline in union organization in private employment

In 1956, the first year in which the total number of U.S white-collar employeesexceeded the number of blue-collar workers, one-third of the nation’ s nonagricul-tural workers were unionized By 1999, only one in seven were members just13.9 percent of the total work force, and only 9.5 percent of private sector work-ers The absolute number of private sector union members continued to rise until

1970, but has since declined to 9.5 million (U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics 2000).Table 1.1 shows membership figures for the largest private sector unions today.Table 1.2 displays public and private sector union membership by state

B Factors Contributing to Private-Sector Union Decline

The fading fortunes of unions in the private sector have spawned a great amount

of discussion and debate Three major factors have contributed to union decline,although their relative importance is subject to dispute (e.g., Freeman and Medoff1984; Goldfield 1987; Kochan et at 1986)

TABLE 1.1 Membership in Largest Private Sector Unions

International Brotherhood of Teamsters 1,500,000 (2000)

Service Employees International Union 375,0001 (1999)

United Food and Commercial Workers 1,400,000 (2000)

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 679,000 (1995)

International Association of Machinists 475,000 (2000)

Source: Self-reported figures from each organization’s Internet website

1Does not include public and nonprofit sector membership

TABLE 1.2 Union Membership for 1997

ALL WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

TABLE 1.2 Continued

ALL WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

Source: Compiled from the Current Population Survey 1998

shifted from manufacturing, mining, construction, and transportation to servicessuch as banking and finance, insurance, and information-based technology His-torically, white-collar workers have been difficult to organize because of the pres-tige and professionalism associated with their jobs, special interests and needsthat have not been attended to by the unions, and the generally poor image oforganized labor among this group (Sloane and Whitney 1981:10-13) In a sense,unions have also been victims of their own success Union-ratcheted salariesand wages placed firms in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, and New York at acompetitive disadvantage, encouraging many of them to move to low-wage non-union states such as Texas, Tennessee, and North Carolina, and, increasingly, todeveloping countries

The structural explanation seems compelling on the surface, but empiricalinvestigations have determined that its contribution to union decline is moderate.Furthermore, similar structural changes have been occurring in Canada, theUnited Kingdom, Germany, and other industrialized nations where unionizationremains relatively healthy and is even growing

2 Unfavorable Legal and Policy Environment

It is asserted that the decline of unions can be attributed at least partly to tions on labor organizing and other activities by the Taft-Hartley, Landrum-Griffin, and other legislation For example, Taft-Hartley prohibits the require-

restric-ment of union membership as a condition of employment (the "closed shop")and permits "fight-to-work" laws (which bar the "union shop") Taft-Hartleyalso restricts slowdowns, sit-down strikes, and wildcat strikes Moreover, theNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which administers federal labor lawand investigates and decides allegations of unfair labor practices against employ-ers and unions, has delivered a high proportion of unfavorable decisions to unions

in the last two decades (Gross 1995; Forbath 1991) The federal courts have beencriticized for anti-union decisions as well For example, the so-called MacKayDoctrine, promulgated by the U.S Supreme Court in 1938 but not widely applieduntil President Ronald Reagan emboldened business by sacking 11,000 air trafficcontrollers in 1981, allows firms to hire permanent replacements for strikingworkers These concerns have led union supporters to call for congressional ac-tions to level a labor-management playing field that appears to be tilting againstthe unions Yet Congress has been influenced by business interests who havefrequently succeeded in rallying Republicans and conservative Democrats to de-feat labor-friendly legislation For instance, a bill to ban permanent replacement

of striking employees passed the House by a wide margin in 1992, but businessinterests helped bottle it up in the Senate

3 Strategic Factors

The strategic choices made and not made by union leaders have contributed

to union decline Some critical choices made decades ago, including the rejection

of ideological approaches to labor’s relationship to government and the failure

to mount a labor party to compete for a legitimate voice in government, debilitatelabor’s political power and influence today Labor’s long-term reliance on theDemocratic Party for political clout continues today (Dark 1999) But to manyDemocrats, labor is just another interest group

From the 1970s until 1998, unions spent less money on organizing newmembers and participated in fewer NLRB certification elections than in earlieryears (the trend was reversed in 1998 with AFL-CIO President John Sweeney’sorganizing initiatives) What’s more, management won far more union electionsthan they lost Employer resistance to unions has grown dramatically, assisted

by hundreds of management consulting firms specializing in "union-busting"(Bernstein 1985; Gagala 1983: Ch 3) Various tactics bolster employer resistance

to unions "Positive employee relations" means establishing a compensation tem and working conditions that are as good as or better than those found inunionized workplaces Other legal resistance techniques involve hiring consul-tants to help contest union elections through tough, well-financed corporate cam-paigns to keep the unions out; stirring worker doubts about the potential benefits

sys-of unions; delaying certification elections until a majority sys-of employees have lostinterest in joining a union; and refusing to bargain collectively even if a union

is established Finally, employers can instigate actions to decertify a union This

tactic was quite successful in the 1980s, with the total number of union cations nearly doubling (Levine 1989).

decertifi-Some firms also engage in illegal activities to fight unions Workers arethreatened, union organizers are fired, and lies and distortions are disseminated.Such employer opposition is asserted by some scholars to be the leading "cause

of the slow strangulation of private sector unionism" (Freeman and Medoff 1984:239; see also Goldfield 1987) The reasons for management intransigence are notdifficult to fathom Keeping unions out means higher profits for the firm It alsomeans that certain managers keep their jobs; those perceived to be responsiblefor losing a union election may find themselves quickly on the street (Freemanand Kleiner 1990:363)!

Merely to survive, unions must continually recruit new members nized labor has not told a compelling story of why today’s workers should want

Orga-to join a union, nor has it manufactured the positive public image and supportnecessary to nurture a receptive audience of unorganized workers

Ultimately, the responsibility for strategic errors by unions must be laid atthe feet of unimaginative, reactive, and all too often self-interested and cor-rupt union leaders Labor has too often poisoned its own well by betraying itsmembers through fraud and corruption and by forming indefensible alliances withorganized crime (Fraser 1998)

Can the private sector union decline be reversed, or is it an inevitable part

of a postindustrial society? Where is the bottom? The hemorrhaging has beengoing on for over 40 years and shows limited signs of arrest However, unionssuffered earlier periods of decline (Rachlett 1999) For instance, unions lost al-most 40 percent of their membership from 1920 to 1933, then recovered strongly.Another such reversal is possible, but it presupposes more astute union leader-ship, more effective organizing strategies, effective coalition-building strategieswith other powerful interest groups, a shift in employer and public opinion infavor of unions, and a more facilitative legal environment, among other factors(see Tillman and Cummings 1999)

Some cause for optimism arose in 1995, when former SEIU president John

J Sweeney was elected president of the 13-million member AFL-CIO (Dark1999:178-184) Sweeney, whose SEIU membership had doubled even as mostother AFL-CIO affiliates’ ranks thinned, worked hard to reverse labors’ decliningfortunes and provoked a far-reaching reexamination of labor’s role in the 21stCentury Sweeney took steps to include more women and minorities in unionleadership positions, dedicated millions of new dollars to organizing drives, andgreatly elevated labor’s profile during the presidential election of 1996 and thecongressional elections of 1998

Will such actions be sufficient to stimulate a rebirth of labor in the U.S.private sector? It is too soon to know For every action taken to rejuvenate theunions, business interests and their Republican allies have countered with efforts

to rewrite labor laws and other strategies designed to disadvantage unions, such

as restrictions on using members’ dues for political and lobbying expenses.Even the celebration following the tactically clever and surprisingly suc-cessful Teamster strike against United Postal Service (UPS) in 1997 proved

be short lived Initially, it appeared that the strike would represent a turning pointfor the unions, which had garnered widespread public sympathy for UPS driversand mail handlers by portraying their job action as an attack on big business andthe "new economy" of insecure part-time workers Public opinion sided withthe union by a 2 to 1 margin, boosted, no doubt, by positive feelings towardsUPS drivers and their packages (Schneider 1988) With the strong support other AFL-CIO affiliates, the Teamsters won the strike by forcing UPS to convert10,000 part-time positions to full time and to abandon a plan for the company

to assume control of the employees’ pension fund

Just as the resuscitation of the sickly patient was being widely heralded,labor once again suffered an untimely relapse as yet another Teamster scandal this one highly contagious infected the top leadership of several other AFL-CIO unions Seventy Teamster locals had been placed under trusteeship by thefederal government because of corruption and links to organized crime Reformpresident Ron Carey had expelled hundreds of local officials Finally it seemedthat the ethically challenged union had cleaned itself up But federal officialsoverturned Carey’s narrow reelection victory over James P Hoffa, Jr because

of an illegal money-laundering scheme Carey’s campaign manager and two sultants pleaded guilty to related charges Improper conduct by AFL-CIO Secre-tary Treasurer Richard Tmmka and American Federation of State, County, andMunicipal Employees President Gerald McEntee was also cited A new electionwas ordered with Carey forbidden to ran Hoffa was then elected president Thetragedy for labor was that despite sincere efforts to get its own house in order,little had really changed in the eyes of the media and the public "New Labor’ s"desire to reinvent, reinvigorate, and reposition itself under Sweeney’s leadershipfaced significant obstacles from congressional Republicans, national conservativegroups, business interests, and a skeptical public

As noted above, public employee organizations first became active during theearly 1800s, particularly in federal shipyards However, until 1836 even in theshipyards they experienced limited success, as military bosses tended to be ratherinsensitive to the opinions of their workers In that year a Washington, D.C navalshipyard strike and a mass demonstration led to intervention by President AndrewJackson, who personally granted the federal employees the 10-hour day theysought A tradition of direct presidential involvement in federal labor problemswas to continue even after passage of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act

The postal workers formed the first federal employee organizations of tional significance The earliest postal organization was established in 1863 byletter carriers in New York; in 1886 the Knights of Labor chartered locals inChicago, Omaha, and other cities Postal clerks were organized in 1888 in NewYork, and the National Association of Letter Carriers was created in 1890 Ruralcarriers formed their own national organization in 1903.

na-The rise of the postal workers under the banners of their various tions was not met with equanimity by the federal government In 1895, Postmas-ter General William L Wilson issued a departmental order prohibiting any postalemployee from visiting Washington for lobbying purposes, at the risk of beingfired When intensive lobbying by postal workers and their organizations contin-ued, much to the annoyance of the executive branch and some members of Con-gress, President Theodore Roosevelt retaliated in 1902 with his infamous gagrule forbidding all federal employees from seeking legislation in their own behalfdirectly or indirectly, individually, or through their organizations (Spero 1948:

organiza-117-127) Assiduous postal employee militancy was also met with union-bustingtactics that included the use of paid informers, the discipline and/or discharge

of organizational leaders, and, ironically, the opening of their personal mail bitt 1976:8)

(Nes-Ever tenacious, the postal workers responded with an anti-gag rule

cam-paign, spearheaded by a magazine, The Harpoon, which was edited by a railway

clerk named Urban A Walter Finally, the postal workers, led by the AFL andthe National Federation of Post Office Clerks, garnered sufficient congressionalsupport to win passage of the Lloyd-LaFollette Act of 1912, guaranteeing federalemployees the First Amendment right to organize and petition Congress for aredress of grievances Although the Lloyd-LaFollette Act had only a small effect

on federal union-busting activities (which continued), it did denote a new tion in the development of postal and other federal labor organizations as theyincreasingly began to seek the full labor fights granted to private sector workers

direc-in the National Labor Relations Act (Spero 1948:143)

Organizational efforts outside the defense establishment and post officeincluded "almost every civil occupation from charwoman to zoologist, from as-tronomer to stone cutter" (Nesbitt 1976:56) These efforts first assumed a promi-nent profile in 1896 with an organizing drive based in New Orleans, but the U.S.Civil Service Commission rebuffed the attempt In 1912, however, the customsinspectors organized successfully on a national scale, and in 1917 the NationalFederation of Federal Employees (NFFE) was formed as an umbrella organiza-tion intended to cover all federal civilian employees except for the postal employ-ees and workers permitted to join AFL affiliates (Nesbitt 1976:58) Two othersignificant general-purpose federal organizations followed: the American Federa-tion of Government Employees (AFGE) in 1932, and the National Association

of Government Employees (NAGE) soon thereafter As becomes evident later

in our discussion, however, substantial growth in these organizations awaitedimplementation of President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10988 of 1962.Organizational progress in the state and local government sectors was alsouneven before the 1960s A crafts orientation was clearly prevalent during theformative years, especially in local government, as teachers, firefighters, and po-lice organized separately The National Teachers Association (NTA) was formed

in 1857 The National Education Association was created in 1870 through amerger of the NTA and two other teacher associations Although these earlyteacher associations were set up and directed by administrators and other schoolauthorities to advance the interests of the teaching occupation and to providemutual aid programs, a steady accumulation of grievances eventually drove theteachers into a more aggressive posture State laws and local ordinances forbadeteachers from smoking, placed restrictions on their dress, imposed curfews, andeven sought to regulate their leisure time In Westchester County, New York,for example, teachers were ordered to bed by 10 P.M One North Carolina townadmonished its teachers "to sleep at least 8 hours a night, to eat carefully, and

to take every precaution to keep in the best of health and spirits" (Spero 1948:298-300) In 1900 the Chicago and San Antonio teachers’ federations responded

to such intrusive rules by affiliating with the AFL Joined by other teacher zations in 1916, they formed the American Federation of Teachers

organi-Firefighters and police began organizing during the late 1800s and the earlyyears of the 20th century, primarily as mutual benefit societies to provide pensionand insurance programs to fulfill the social needs of their members In 1918 theAFL chartered the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), which todayremains the second oldest nationally affiliated state or local union (after theNEA) Police officers first applied for an AFL charter in 1897 in Cleveland By

1919, 37 local police organizations had received certification A relatively largenumber of strikes in the public safety services occurred during 1918-1919 asevidence of growing militancy by police and firefighters, particularly in the largercities One of those strikes by police officers in Boston took on serious na-tional proportions after several days of looting and mob rule and eventual inter-vention by Governor Calvin Coolidge and the Massachusetts National Guard.Negative public reaction to the 1919 Boston Police Strike set back public safetyunionization by some 40 years (see Chapter 8) Local police benefit associationscontinued to exist, but little union activity took place again in the public safetyservices until the 1960s

The largest state and local union today, the American Federation of State,County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), was born in 1932 as the Wiscon-sin State Employees Association Efforts to expand its scope of organization on

a national basis and to extend membership to local employees were made through

a 1935 affiliation with the American Federation of Government Employees(AFGE), which had previously held jurisdiction under the AFL for organizing

state and local government workers The AFGE affiliation appeared unworkable,but AFSCME successfully won independent status within the AFL the very nextyear (see Kramer 1962) As in the case of the public safety organizations local government, AFSCME’s progress was uneven By 1950 it had reached amembership total of about 68,000, but in most jurisdictions the organization was

"harassed, coerced, dismissed or entirely ignored" (Spero and Capozzola1973:18) Although the founder of AFSCME, Arnold Zander, eventually sup-ported collective bargaining and use of the strike when deemed necessary, theformal goals of the organization were rather conservative, being "to stimulatethe growth and extension of civil service and to improve existing merit systems"(Kramer 1962:31) A leadership change at the 1960 national convention produced

a new president with a more aggressive style (Jerry Wurf), a more militant posture

by the national union and its locals across the United States, and substantialmembership gains

As the 1960s progressed, it became clear that government employers could

no longer bank on a docile passive worker, content with a secure job and a rathermodest salary and pension Federal, state, and local government employees inmany jurisdictions would initiate a new venture that few had imagined.The next section explores the reasons for the rise of public employee unions

in the United States, after first considering the converse that is, why publicsector organization lagged behind the private sector for some 30 years

(And Did Not) Unionize

In retrospect, there seem to be three principal factors that inhibited public ployee unionism and collective bargaining prior to the 1960s: the sovereigntyargument, the nature of government employment, and an unfavorable legal envi-ronment Each of them is examined below

em-Ideology for its own sake has never been widely embraced in the UnitedStates For many government employers determined to resist unions, however,the doctrine of sovereignty assumed the aura of ideology, although the aura wassomewhat dimmed by its self-serving usage by those opposed to unions Briefly,the sovereignty argument contends that in a representative democracy the peopleare sovereign, and their will is served by their elected representatives If govern-ment, through these representatives’ appointees or civil servants, bargains overterms and conditions of employment with a union, then sovereignty is violatedthrough the illegal delegation of the people’s sovereign power

The argument would perhaps stand if the various American governmentscould demonstrate their delegative virginity However, representatives of the na-tional, state, and local governments have for over two centuries negotiated con-tracts and arrangements with private sector entities without the express permis-

sion of the electorate (Examples include contracting out weapons systems toprivate manufacturers or garbage collection to finns.) As a consequence of thedaily deflowering of sovereignty throughout the country, invoking the doctrine

in opposition to unions appears to be at best self-serving and at worst hypocritical

S tieber (1973:17) sums up the counterargument well " the doctrine of eignty as applied to employment has been substantially dismembered by legaland academic critics, joined by government lawmakers and rulemakers Govern-ments, however supreme, make deals." Nonetheless, the sovereignty argumenthas been used with various degrees of success to stifle government unionization,and it continues to be a credo held by some political conservatives

sover-The nature of government employment also had a strong bearing on slowpublic sector union growth and development A number of factors are salienthere Government work is predominantly white collar in nature, and governmentwork forces frequently include disproportionate numbers of women and minori-ties In the past, all three categories of employees were traditionally difficult toorganize Moreover, government employment, particularly at the federal level,has been characterized by strong job security, good pensions, and merit systemprotections against partisan political pressure and other forms of managementabuse Merit systems offered an alternative to collective bargaining for determin-ing wages, benefits, and working conditions, and for providing formal grievanceprocedures for unhappy workers wishing to file complaints

Finally, the legal environment for public sector unionism was highly vorable prior to the far-reaching labor law changes instituted at all levels of gov-ernment during the 1960s Many public employees were forbidden to strike ortake other job actions and, most important, statutory provisions for recognizingpublic employee organizations and implementing collective bargaining were veryrare When unions asserted their recognition and bargaining rights in the courts,they were frequently spumed by a hostile judiciary

unfa-E The Growth of Unions in Government

As repeatedly mentioned, circumstances changed dramatically during the 1960s,and public employee unions and collective bargaining spread rapidly across juris-dictions at all levels throughout that decade and the next There were severalimportant developments that moved the unions into the forefront of governmentemployment Although the causal variables facilitating government union growthare complex, multiple, and interrelated, it is possible to identify several factorsthat have contributed significantly to unionization: (1) the growth of government,(2) the private sector experience, (3) changes in the public sector legal environ-ment, and (4) the social change and turmoil that characterized the 1960s andearly 1970s (Shaw and Clark 1972a:901-904)

1 The Growth of Government

During the 1960s and 1970s the number of civilian government jobs mately doubled, with most of the growth occurring in the state and local sectors.This greatly expanded work force presented an attractive target for union organiz-ers By 1980, almost one of every six working people in the United States wasemployed at some level of government From a base year of 1951, employment

approxi-in federal government rose 24 percent to 2,866,000 workers in 1980, while stateand local employment increased by about 227 percent to 13,383,000 The nation’stotal employment over this time period registered a gain of 89 percent

The number of federal civilian employees has actually declined since 1980.The only notable surge in federal employment after the world wars and the Ko-rean War was during 1965 to 1967, reflecting defense-related civilian employ-ment from escalation of the war in Viet Nam and President Lyndon Johnson’sWar on Poverty programs The number of federal civilian jobs dropped fromabout 2.9 million in 1980 to 1.85 million in 1998, primarily as a result of massivedownsizing during the Clinton-Gore administration (cpsinfo.bls.gov Jan 25,

1999, see Figure 1.1)

Several factors help explain the enormous gains in state and local ment employment that commenced in the mid- 1960s and tailed offby 1976 First,national population growth necessitated additional government workers to service

F=GURE 1.1 Public employment, by level of government 1955 to 1998 Source:U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1999

the expanding number of programs intended to address people’s health, tion, social service, and other needs Second, the age distribution of the populationshifted Larger proportions of the population were situated in the "less than 25"and "65 years and over" ranges, the two groups that claim the bulk of govern-ment services Finally, federal funding increases for state and locally adminis-tered programs (including social services, transportation, and environmental pro-tection programs) contributed to the surge in state and local jobs.

educa-Not surprisingly, government employment figures also depict a steady shiftfrom blue-collar to white-collar jobs as well as gains in the proportion of womenand minorities in government employment More than half of public employeesare women African Americans and Hispanics make up almost 25 percent of totalpublic employment

Along with the growth of government came increasing bureaucratizationand depersonalization of the public service, twin forces that have tended to isolateand alienate the individual employee (Shaw and Clark 1972a:902; Shutt 1986)

No longer is most government employment characterized by a small "family"

of people who know and relate to one another in a neighborly fashion from thetop of the hierarchy to the bottom Dissatisfaction with paternalism, personalism,and clogged communication channels within an increasingly complex organiza-tional structure convinced many government workers of the need for intermediaryorganizations like unions to represent them collectively in their relationships withmanagement

Ballooning government employment rolls presented a very attractive ganizing target for private sector unions, which were suffering from a precipitousdecline in the number of blue-collar jobs in industry Union leaders who hereto-fore had concentrated their membership drives on the private sector began court-ing public employees, often through existing professional organizations A natu-ral community of interest among public workers such as teachers, firefighters,and police officers had found expression through professional associations andhad preconditioned them to the values of organizational membership (Moskow

or-et al 1970:287) Unions helped convince members of these associations that theycould enjoy the same benefits of unionization as union members in the privatesector

2 The Private Sector Experience

Unions in the private sector had successfully won wage and benefit increasesand improved working conditions for their members This did not go unnoticed bypublic employees, who were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with governmentwages and conditions of employment Even the traditional job security of govern-ment employment had become problematic in some jurisdictions

The civil service systems entrenched in most large government jurisdictionswere unable or unwilling to respond adequately to public employee demands

For instance, wage and benefits adjustments typically required legislative action.

In light of these circumstances public workers became more receptive to thenotion of unionization and began demanding compensation and labor rights equal

to those in the private sector

As private sector unions moved aggressively into the relatively unplowedand fertile fields of public employment, the preexisting professional organizationsrightfully felt threatened Strong organizing efforts by emerging unions like theAmerican Federation of Teachers, for example, spurred the National EducationAssociation to reconsider its own future role in public education and eventually

to embrace the full panoply of union activities In many jurisdictions privatesector unions like the Service Employees International Union and the Teamstersbegan to compete directly with the professional associations In some cases pro-fessional and fraternal organizations had to adopt an overt union strategy in order

to survive The rivalries between these various types of organizations led to creased militancy and intensified organizing drives, which, on the whole, furtherenhanced government unionization (Stieber 1974:830)

in-3 Changes in the Legal Environment

Unionization, however widespread within a government jurisdiction, may befunctionally impotent in the absence of a legal framework requiting public em-ployers to recognize and bargain with employee organizations Two events duringthe early 1960s contributed indirectly to the creation of a more favorable legalenvironment for enactment of public sector labor laws First, the U.S SupremeCourt ordered reapportionment of the U.S Congress and the 50 state legislatures

(Baker v Carr 1962; Reynolds v Simms 1964) on the basis of "one person one

vote." These decisions ended or at least limited the domination of many statelegislatures by rural, predominantly anti-union interests Unions, which have al-ways found their strongest support among people in metropolitan areas, soondiscovered more sympathetic ears in the legislative bodies of the states

The second development encouraging bargaining legislation was PresidentJohn F Kennedy’s Executive Order 10988 of 1962, which guaranteed unioniza-tion and bargaining rights for federal employees This order might have been theturning point in state and local unionization Although it is impossible to ascertain

a direct cause and effect relationship between Executive Order 10988 and thesubsequent enactment of labor relations legislation in numerous jurisdictions, itdoes appear that it had a substantial spillover effect in legitimizing public em-ployee unionization and collective bargaining practices (Moskow et al 1970:5)

4 An Era of Social Change and Turmoil

There was a massive infusion of young people and racial minorities into thepublic work force during the 1960s Both groups were somewhat distrustful of

authority and the existing management structure Furthermore, both groups, onthe whole, were favorably disposed to unions (Barrett 1973).

Police officers, for instance, became "sick and tired of being harassed,cursed, spit on, and shot at" (Juris and Feuille 1973:18) Especially in large urbanareas, police found themselves working in an extremely hostile environment in-habited by militant blacks and students whose ire was often directed specifically

at law enforcement personnel Supreme Court decisions that restricted police

dis-cretion, such as Miranda v Arizona (1966), and community demands for civilianreview boards to assess alleged police misconduct were seen as threats to theofficers’ professional and personal well-being At the same time public officialslodged increasingly adamant demands for "law and order" and improved policeprotection for the community To many police officers, these intense and insistentexternal pressures, when examined in conjunction with perceptions of low payand antiquated personnel practices, became unbearable The options, as Hirsch-man (1970) has pointed out, are exit (resign), voice (protest), or loyalty (suck up) Some, indeed, decided to look for other, less demanding lines of work; otherschose to suffer through the experience while awaiting retirement Many, however,elected to give voice to their complaints through unions

American workers in the private sector join unions because they are isfied They want higher wages and better benefits, job security, participation indecision making, and protection of their rights as workers Seldom have political

dissat-or ideological appeals persuaded U.S wdissat-orkers to dissat-organize Rather, the principalmotive has been to improve conditions of employment through collective voiceand action (Kochan 1980:143) For blue-collar workers the bread-and-butter eco-nomic issues are usually paramount For white-collar workers psychological rea-sons such as job security and a desire for a voice in decision making are ofsomewhat greater significance (Kochan 1979:26) For almost all private sectoremployees job dissatisfaction "must be quite severe before a majority will sup-port unionization as an option for improving these conditions" (Kochan 1979:26) A recent example is the widespread dissatisfaction of medical doctors withHMOs and other forms of managed care that provoked the American MedicalAssociation to vote in favor of forming a labor union in 1999

To a large extent public employees join unions for the same reasons astheir counterparts in the private sector They are dissatisfied with one or moreimportant aspects of their jobs Job-related conditions especially conducive tounionization include hazardous, physically demanding, or repetitive tasks; littleinput into job-related decisions; and perceptions of arbitrary and unfair manage-ment actions and decisions (Hills 1985; Hundley 1988; Sherer 1987; Premackand Hunter 1988) But dissatisfaction alone is not sufficient Workers must alsobelieve that union representation will be instrumental in securing the desiredeconomic and psychological benefits, and that the value of these benefits willexceed the costs associated with unionization Race, gender, and life experiencesalso play a part in the propensity to join a union Research indicates that women,African Americans, Hispanics, the less educated, and individuals who have beenpreviously exposed to unions are more likely to join them, for example, than arehighly educated white males born of parents who are doctors or lawyers (Hills1985; Hundley 1988; Leigh and Hills 1987; DeFreitas 1993) No doubt thesefactors are related For instance, women, blacks, and the less educated have hadfewer opportunities for career advancement, and may tend to see unions as avehicle for gaining status and pay Individuals with these characteristics are alsomore likely to have blue-collar, union parents.

Union membership is still higher among men (16.2 percent) than women(11.4 percent), but the gap is closing By t998, a higher percentage of AfricanAmericans (17.7 percent) were members of unions than whites (13.5 percent)and Hispanics (11.9 percent) (U.S BLS 1999) The growing propensity of womenand African Americans to join labor organizations reverses a long-term pattern

in which these groups were least likely to join Historically, women and ties were systematically discriminated against by unions in both the public andprivate sectors In the 1960s and early 1970s, however, the civil fights movementand the women’s movement forged links with organized labor Today, low-paidwomen and minority employees often have the most to gain from unions, andmany public employee organizations in particular have recognized the tremen-dous potential for membership gains represented by unorganized minority groups(see Riccucci 1990)

minori-The case of Hispanics is complex and still being sorted out by researchers.The Hispanic labor force is rapidly accelerating in the United States, largelybecause of high immigration rates from the Caribbean, Central America, andMexico However, the growth rate of Hispanic union membership, although itnow exceeds that of whites, has not kept pace with the increasing Hispanic pene-tration of the labor force Among the factors that may be depressing unionizationamong Hispanics are immigration status, short duration of residence in the UnitedStates, and deficient English-language skills (DeFreitas 1993:285) As this seg-ment of the population continues to surge and unions begin to recognize theirorganizing potential and reach out to them, higher unionization rates are very

likely to follow The success of the "Justice for Janitors" campaign in organizinglarge numbers of Hispanic custodial workers in Los Angeles, San Diego, andmany other cities is one indication of the proclivity of low-skilled low-paid His-panics to join unions (Johnston 1994).

III FUTURE PROSPECTS

Unions continue to exercise significant political influence in the U.S private tor despite the steep declines in their representation of the labor force And the

sec-"Sweeney Revolution" had stirred up a good amount of excitement and a newed sense of optimism among partisans of organized labor as the new centuryarrived But important economic and political forces continue to oppose orga-nized labor in the private sector

re-The picture is quite different in the public sector Although overall ship leveled off years ago, several public employee unions grew their membershipduring the 1990s, including the NEA, AFT, and AFSCME Moreover, tradition-ally private sector unions have captured significant numbers of public workers.Public employee unions are now, and will remain in the future, powerful forceswithin U.S politics and public administration The final chapter in this bookassesses their future in greater detail

member-The Unions Today

This chapter explores the organizational landscape of public employee unions,

including the factors that are correlated with unionization The key term is versity Public sector unions vary along many dimensions and across levels ofgovernment They are different in terms of affiliation Some are federated withnational organizations such as the AFL-CIO Others are local independent orga-nizations with no national affiliation Some unions representing governmentworkers also organize and bargain for workers in the private and nonprofit sectors(e.g., SEIU) Others (e.g., Fraternal Order of Police) essentially restrict theirboundaries to public employees There are unions with membership rolls number-ing more than one million, and there are unions whose ranks are counted indouble digits The occupations of union members are also highly diverse Clericalpersonnel, firefighters, nurses, welders, physicians, and university professors allwork under union banners Wherever workers experience high levels of job dis-satisfaction, unionization is a possibility

Despite the early recognition of federal employee organizing rights by ExecutiveOrder 10988, federal unions do not benefit from national policy as favorable asthat governing private sector labor relations The scope of bargaining in federallabor relations is quite restricted; federal employees represented by bargainingunits do not have to join the union, and there is a strong no-strike policy Exclud-ing Postal Service employees, federal employee unions represented about 55 per-cent of the 1.90 million civilian work force in 1997 (Light 1999)

Between 1964 (the first year for which such data were collected) and 1968,federal employee union membership figures climbed rapidly to about half of thetotal civilian work force The highwater mark was 1987, when 59 percent offederal employees were covered by collective bargaining, agreements But dra-matic reductions in the size of federal employment have driven down the number

of employees represented by unions, even though the percentage represented byunions has remained stable (U.S.O.P.M 1997:Table 14)

23

Federal labor relations policy as embedded today in the Civil Service form Act of 1978 (see Chapter 3) severely constrains the potential influence federal unions on wages, benefits, and working conditions It is important to notethat federal law prohibits membership-enhancing union security provisions such

Re-as the Fair Share, which requires individuals whom the union represents in tive bargaining to either join the union or pay their "fair share" of union dues forrepresentational expenses This is an ideal situation for encouraging free riders,who enjoy the benefits of union representation in collective bargaining and griev-ances, but who are not required to contribute out of their own paychecks forunion services Free riders pose a serious problem for federal unions, which aremandated by law to represent, equally and fairly, all members of their bargainingunits, whether they belong to the union or not Dues are the primary measure of

collec-a union’s strength collec-and collec-ability to fincollec-ance representcollec-ationcollec-al collec-and politiccollec-al collec-activities.Many federal employees are, indeed, free riders For example, the largestfederal union, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), rep-resented approximately 596,000 bargaining unit members in 1997, but only aboutone-third of them were union members All told, out of the approximately 59percent of federal wage system (blue-collar) and General Schedule (white-collar)employees who are represented by a collective bargaining contract, only 32 per-cent of them actually belong to the union and pay dues

The most notable exception to this pattern is the U.S Postal Service Asnoted in Chapter One, postal workers were instrumental in early federal employeeunionization efforts They are the most highly organized of all federal workerstoday They enjoy their own statutory framework, which was won in the aftermath

of a 1970 postal strike As a consequence, postal unions have full private sectorcollective bargaining fights, with the exception of union security provisions andthe right to strike Postal union membership figures are almost equal to the propor-tion under contract, about 90 percent The near absence of a free-rider problemfor postal unions is attributable to these superior bargaining rights and, in turn,

to the unions’ greater success in winning improvements in wages, benefits, andworking conditions from management

Federal employee unions represent employees in at least 65 agencies, fromthe U.S Department of Agriculture to the U.S Information Agency In 1997, 59percent of all federal civilian employees were in bargaining units, including 88percent of all blue-collar workers and 55 percent of white-collar (U.S.O.P.M.1997: Table B) The largest numbers of represented employees are found amongcivilian workers for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and in the Department ofVeterans’ Affairs and the Department of the Treasury Ninety-one unions repre-sent employees in at least one federal bargaining unit Table 2.1 shows the unionsthat represent the greatest numbers of federal employees

It is useful to review briefly the principal federal unions and some of theirdistinctive characteristics The largest federal union, the American Federation of

TABLE 2.1 Federal Employee Organizations, Employees Covered by

Agreement, and Number of Agreements, January 1, 1997

No employees covered No collective

Source: U.S Office of Personnel Management 1997

Government Employees (AFGE), represents 546,468 employees It was created

by the AFL-CIO in 1932 when a preexisting organization, the National tion of Federal Employees (NFFE), withdrew from the AFL-CIO over jurisdic-tional and policy conflicts AFGE membership today is heaviest in the District

Federa-of Columbia area and, somewhat surprisingly, in the Southeast, where largenumbers of civilians are employed in military facilities The head of AFGEfrom 1976 to 1988 was Kenneth Btaylock, a native of Alabama Under Blay-lock’s leadership the union was politically active in lobbying and in participat-ing in demonstrations and marches In 1988, John N Sturdivant, an AfricanAmerican, defeated Blaylock to become the new president AFGE has substantialminority and female representation both in the rank and file and in leadershippositions

Blaylock was instrumental in convincing AFGE convention delegates in

1976 to approve a resolution supporting extension of the union’s jurisdiction tomilitary personnel Although a vote of the total membership later soundly de-feated the resolution, merely raising the issue was enough to generate a consider-able amount of consternation and apprehension in the defense establishment and,subsequently, in Congress

Ostensibly, the American military would appear to offer a ripe environmentfor union organizers Pay is quite tow in relation to comparable work in civilianlife (although some fringe benefits are superior) and working conditions certainly

do not rank among the finest In addition, a highly defined and rigorously enforceddivision exists between military "management" and "labor," represented bydistinctions in uniformed dress, privileges, and other factors, creating a naturaland sometimes intense adversarial relationship Not of least importance to theunions is the huge number of potential members in the active military (over 1.4million in 1999) and National Guard and Reserve

Organization of the armed forces in several Western European nations (e.g.,Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium) shows thatmilitary unionization is feasible However, some rather serious objections may

be lodged The strike issue is of obvious importance, as is the matter of taining military discipline Other troubling questions involve allocation of lessdesirable job assignments, effective representation of diverse military occupa-tions by a single large union, and the potential scope of bargaining (see Kovach

main-et al 1978; Krendel and Samhoff 1977) For the indefinite future, organizing

of military personnel by the AFGE or other unions has been precluded by aDepartment of Defense directive and strong congressional opposition Civilianworkers in defense establishments may belong to unions, but not uniformedpersonnel

AFGE’s major competitor, the National Federation of Federal Employees(NFFE), has historically assumed a much lower profile in its organizing and polit-ical tactics The currently independent NFFE began in 1917 as an affiliate of theAFL, but withdrew in 1931 largely because of opposition to the strike and otheraspects of collective bargaining as practiced by AFL affiliates in the private sec-tor NFFE even opposed the conservative provisions of Executive Order 10988for some time The less than progressive posture of the organization led to steadydeclines in its membership until 1967, when new leadership was elected NFFE,like AFGE, then purged a no-strike pledge from its constitution and assumed amore active political posture NFFE (118,285 employees covered by collectivebargaining agreements) is much smaller than AFGE, and suffers even more fromthe free rider problem only one out of five represented workers pays dues In

1990, the NFFE membership elected a woman, Sheila K Velazco, as nationalpresident

The second largest federal organization is the National Treasury EmployeesUnion (NTEU) NTEU is a nonaffiliated union that began in the Internal RevenueService in 1938 (as the National Association of Collectors of Internal Revenue)and has since expanded throughout the Treasury Department and other federalagencies Its aggressive organizing drives have made NTEU one of the fastestgrowing federal unions in recent years, and it enjoys a higher percentage of dues-paying members than most other federal unions

The National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) (52,396 ered by agreements), which originally was composed mostly of veterans, espe-cially within the Federal Aviation Administration, merged in 1982 with the Ser-vice Employees International Union, its major competitor in New England TheNAGE originally organized the air traffic controllers, who split off during theearly 1970s to form their own union, the Professional Air Traffic Controller’sOrganization (PATCO), later to become a victim of the Reagan administration(see Chapter 8) (The air traffic controllers are represented by the National Traffic Controllers’ Association today.) The Metal Trades Council (MTC) the International Association of Machinists (IAM) represent industrial workers

cov-in federal shipyards and related facilities Several associations (e.g., Senior utives Association, Federal Managers Association) represent upper-level federalemployees in lobbying the president and the Congress for improvements in com-pensation and working conditions and greater respect for the public service.Postal employees, who officially work for a quasigovernment corporation,are represented by several organizations The oldest, the National Association ofLetter Carriers (NALC, 241,300 members), was founded in 1890, and later be-came an affiliate of the AFL-CIO The other, larger, postal organization is theAmerican Postal Workers Union (APWU, 361,200 members), formed in 1971through an amalgamation of five smaller organizations that represented clerks,carriers, and crafts workers Women, who comprise about five percent of APWUmembership, organized an intra-APWU group called POWER (Post OfficeWomen for Equal Rights) The ranks of the letter carriers remain predominantlymale, although a growing number of women now deliver the mail

Exec-The multiple unit merger of the APWU was prompted by the Postal nization Act of 1970, which contained provisions permitting the National LaborRelations Board to strongly encourage union consolidation Other postal organi-zations of significance today are the National Rural Letter Carriers Association,the National Postal Mail Handlers, and the National Alliance of Postal and Fed-eral Employees The latter serves primarily as a fraternal and civil rights organiza-tion for black postal employees

Reorga-Prospects for membership growth in federal employee unions are ratherdim Continuing technological changes and competition from private firms such

as United Postal Service and Federal Express are steadily eliminating jobs in thepostal service The oft-suggested termination of Saturday mail delivery wouldpermit further cutbacks in postal jobs Since membership figures are already at

90 percent, postal unions can expect little or no benefit from attempting to enlistrepresented (but nonunion) workers

Prospects seem equally doubtful for the other federal unions, most of whichremain unable to bargain over important issues such as wages and continue tolack union security provisions that would allow them to increase their member-ship Far-reaching reductions in force during the early 1980s and again during