Taylors Law and the Right to Strike by Public Employees - Research Paper Example

Taylor’s Law and the Right to Strike by Public Employees Table of Contents Introduction 2 Discussion 2 Conclusion 8 9 Reference List 10 Introduction The Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act, stated under the Civil Service Law 200-214, commonly referred to as the Taylor Law is a statute governing the labor relationships that covers public employees in the state of New York. The employees who fall under the discretion of this law are the one’s employed by the State or by the counties, towns, cities, villages, public authorities or certain special service districts. It came into effect on 1st of September 1967. It was the first broad labor relations law which focused on public employees in the State, and among the first in the United States (Crotty 2001). Taylor Law gives public employees the right to assemble and be represented by unions of their own choice. The law states that the public employers should negotiate and enter into agreements with the unions regarding the terms and conditions of employing their employees. The law highlights the procedures to resolute collective bargaining disputes as well as defines and prohibits any improper practices conducted by public employers and union. Taylor Law strictly prohibits strikes by public employees and establishes a state agency known as the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) that is responsible for administering the law (PERB 2013). This research paper’s primary focus would lie in explaining the right to strike by public employees, as it is one practice which is prohibited under the law. International Labour Conference, the Governing body, the committee of experts and the committee on Freedom of Association have not been able to produce one conclusive statement that proclaims that workers have a right to strike. While the statements which are asserted are not conclusive regarding the existence of such a right, there is an immediate need to enquire and determine whether a right to strike exists or not. Discussion Right to Strike by Public Employees Strikes are collective actions which are taken by workers as a means of safeguarding their interest (Swiatkowski 2005, 285). Over the last six decades, the International Labor Organization (ILO) has recognized that there is a positive right to strike by public employees that is inextricably interlinked to and an unavoidable consequence of the right to freedom of association (Bellace 2013, 2). According to Samuelsen (2012), the right of public employee unions to bargain collectively is being challenged aggressively by Conservative politicians and media. In the United States of America, both the Republican and Democratic Government have collectively supported the regulations (bills) that put restrictions on what unions can bargain for and have bludgeoned public workers into massive cuts. Under the impression of the freedom of association, it was witnessed quite frequently that workers joined together to demand better terms of employment from their employers. If the employer refrained from agreeing to their demands then workers usually resorted to some form of industrial actions such as strikes, boycotts or picketing in order to put pressure on the employee to meet their demands (Bellace 2013, 6-7). Every public employee does deserve the right to strike in order to prevent themselves from being exploited by their superior or employer. It is of utmost importance to demonstrate disagreement in situations where excessive domination is done by the employers (Lacampagne 1983, 510). Milne (2011) explains that there are five reasons why public service workers have the right to strike. The author explains that, the government is trying to exploit the employees by trying to make most pay more and work longer for less even after the month’s modest concessions. The author explained that this practice is being done by the government not to fund pensions because people are living longer, but to help bail out banks by paying the deficit when an economic crisis is triggered. Pension is not a bonus, it is rather a deferred pay and thus protecting this pay and conditions is the primary responsibility of unions and the public service workers. Thus, in order to safeguard this interest the public employees deserve the right to strike. Secondly, the strikes are called not only to defend the workers but their services as well. The government, by driving down the pay, pensions and conditions in the public service sector will also bring down the quality of services it provides. This is the reason why the governments sometimes praise those influential people who refrain from calling any strikes pertaining to particular issues. The issue was regarding not offering teaching positions to highly qualified and talented individuals as they have to be paid well. So the government decided not to attract the best minds for the vacant positions thereby deteriorating the quality of education. Thus, in situations like these, calling for strikes is a necessity in order to preserve the quality of services being offered by the public service workers. It is believed that protection of public pensions will support the economy. Milne (2011) highlights that; the current economy is facing one of its biggest challenges which is the lack of demand and investment. It has been forecasted that the government’s cut programs which has been designed to cut down on pay and pensions will tip the country’s economy towards another recession which will be very hard to recover from. Thus, any such practices being done by the government needs to be restricted and the best means of protest in this case will be a strike. This is primarily because if the government keeps on increasing the pension contribution thereby decreasing the pension entitlements on top of the falling basic pay, it would severely hamper the country’s economy. It has to be brought under the government’s attention that the more successful the public employees and the unions are in defending their living standard and lifestyle, the better it is for the economy. The best way to proceed with this course of action is a collective but peaceful strike. The moment strike is surrendered as a means to confront exploitations and oppressions in the field of work that is the minute public employees lose their powers. In addition to that it is believed that authorities would not shift from their decision just because of a strong case but because of the pressure created upon them to change their decision. The larger the Wednesday strikes, the better the chances of the authorities to shift further. Strikes are also a way to demonstrate who actually does the work that matters to human lives the most and on top of that it also showcases democratic strength in the work place. Lastly, strikes are a way to grab the wealth of the top 1% individuals. The government implements its pay and pension cut program in order to compensate for the havoc wreaked by the wealthiest of all whose wealth continues to increase. Their misuse of their wealth and power has resulted in the sufferings of mass civilians, largely the public sector employees. Between 1975 and 2008, the share of wages and salaries in then national income decreased significantly from 65% to 53% (Milne 2011). It has been witnessed there was a perfect correlation between the decline in the union membership and the amount of that national wealth grabbed by the top 1%. If this continues then there would be a wide gap between the rich and poor and middle-class, average middle class and higher middle class community will cease to exist. Rich will get richer and poor people will become poorer. Thus in order to bring about a profound change in this trend a powerful but demonstration of mass disagreement is required and thus it is the right of the public to call for a strike in order to safeguard their own interest as well as the country’s. Implication of Taylor’s Law According to Peterson (1988, 571-572), the law for the public has undergone a drastic change over the last decade or two. A relatively recent phenomenon that has been witnessed is the statutory protection of public employees’ bargaining rights. Quite contrasting to the limited statutory protection afforded in the private sector, state laws unanimously declared strikes in the public sector as illegal and against the public policy. According to Bellace (2013, 7), the primary aim of a strike should only and only be to create more favorable conditions of employment and payment thereby exerting pressure on the employer who regulates the work and pay conditions. However, it has been stated by the author that strikes cannot be organized in order to protect workers employed by another employer. The foreseeable result of strikes called by public sector employees was that the employers would incur economic loss as a result of this industrial action. If the unions are asked to compensate for the damages, then they would go bankrupt. Taylor law was formulated and henceforth implemented in order to prevent situations like this as this kind of events trigger chain reactions thereby tipping the country towards economic crises. The major implication of Taylor law is that it renders the public sector employees absolutely powerless thereby making them vulnerable to exploitation. Its strict implementation would give rise to an economy which is employer dominated and thus the concept of democracy in the workplace will cease to exist. In the mid 1960s the empire state in New York was a scene of growing public sector unrest. Public sector employees spanning from Long island to buffalo were collectively supporting the common initiative of enhancing the collective bargaining rights. Major worker unions active in the New York have been seen negotiating contracts with their employers in the 1950s using or rather misusing public sector strikes. This disrupted the essential city services such as transport and education. Taylor law was formulated to keep a check in this kind of unprotected public demonstrations. The law was designed in order to create a comprehensive framework whereby labor management disputes occurring in the state and local government can be solved in an orderly manner. After a shaky start when the law met with severe criticism and demonstrations, it succeeded eventually. Owing to this law, strikes are now rarely witnessed in the streets of New York. In recent times, negotiations are settled between two parties without resorting to any third party intervention (O'Neil and McMahon 2007). According to the author, civilians have paid steep price for this labor peace owing to the formulation of Taylor law. It has been seen that, over the last four decades local government job vacancies have increase at twice the rate of private sector employment in New York. In addition to that, the average salary of local and state government employees became much higher than that of private sector workers in most regions of New York. The public sector employees were paid more so as to better compensate them in order to prevent any future issues that might arise because of the cost cutting program implemented by the government. If those issues occur then the existence of Taylor law will again come under scrutiny. The Taylor committee on its final report in March 1966 said that there is a widespread realization that restricting public employees from calling strikes is not a proper method to deal with the issues that arise in the field of work. However, imposing this restriction is of utmost importance in order to preserve the law and order. That is why the committee believed that protect public from strikes in the public services sector requires the committee to designate other ways and means of dealing with the issues and claims of public employees in order to do an equitable treatment. According to the committee, strike is an action that does play a crucial role in the collective bargaining process. However, this comment was made with the private sector in mind. Hence, this statement would not be held true for the public sector services. Taylor committee highlighted that a work halt in the private sector leads to the direct participants incurring direct costs. They have a high exposure to risk while fixing the terms of settlement. IN addition to that the volumes during a strike, the volumes of sales and opportunities for employment are at stake. While on the other hand, a strike called by the public sector employees induces an alien force in the legislative process which might lead to terrible consequences. The Taylor committee acknowledged the fact that some public services can be viewed as being of more importance than others. However, they were unable and rather unwilling to identify the ones which were essential. In such a context, the committee concluded that a strike organized by any group of state or local government employees (public sector employees) was not compatible with the orderly functioning of the democratic form of government that the country represented. Thus, prohibition of such kind of action had to be enforced with immediate effect. This resulted in the formulation the thereafter the implementation of the Taylor law. Analysis The year 2005 witnessed a massive strike being called by nearly 34,000 members of the Transport Workers Union (TWU) over issues that involved negotiations over retirement, pension and age increases with the Metropolitan Transport Authority (MTA). The public employees halted all public communications that involved subway and bus services for 60 hours that affected million of daily commuters. The strike was short lived but it had severe repercussions. This event suggested that Taylor law needs to be modified to a certain degree in order regulate labor relations in the USA. The law applies to the public employees within the New York state who work for state or counties, cities, towns, villages or any other public authorities. It grants public sector employees the right to organize and be represented by employee organizations of their choice. It requires the workers to negotiate and enter into an agreement regarding the terms and conditions of their employment with these organizations without the involvement of any third party. However, the law is best known for enforcing strict prohibition on strikes by public employees. This is one aspect of the law that has been under constant scrutiny since its implementation in the year 1967. After studying different views regarding a public employee’s right to organize a strike, it can be suggested that, given the situations that occur in companies as a result of employer exploitation or oppression, the employees do deserve the right to strike in order to safeguard their interest. Allowing this action would strengthen the existence of democracy within the work place. However, it has been witnessed over the years that public strike has been of a huge cause of concern for other civilians as well as employers which resulted in disjunction of government authorities. That is why Taylor law was designed in order to impose strict penalties to the striking union. The penalty to striking union comes in the form of suspension of its due check off. In addition to that, the law imposes penalty on the individual worker involved in the strike, at the rate of two times the salary of the employee for each day the strike prevails. These are heavy penalties that restrict employees from violating such laws. Over the last few decades it has been witnessed that the law provides more bargaining strength to the employer by snatching away the most effective bargaining approach from the public sector employees. This however is a cause of concern as the law was meant to regulate labor- management relations, stated in the New York state legislature that attempts to strike a balance between the rights of public employees and their employers (Swearengen 2011, 513-517). This is not being achieved by the law as it is completely shifting the power of bargaining from employees to their employers thus giving them the opportunity to exploit the workers as and when they deem appropriate. It has been seen that Taylor law has been misused by employers when they become wayward in their bargaining attitude without the fear of driving their employees to strike. In such situations, the resulting labor agreements are decided on the basis of what the employer sees fit. Thus, it can be said that this outcome is unethical as far as legitimate bargaining is concerned. The implementation of Taylor law has brought down the rate of strikes by a significant proportion. Nowadays, public sector strike in New York is rarely witnessed. However, this implementation if not modified accordingly will result in a severe economic crises in the upcoming years. A crises that would be very hard to avoid as it is directly associated with the situation of the middle class working community. Taylor law gives the employers an opportunity to cut down on their costs by decreasing the pay and pension of their employers as they know that there would be no demonstrations following this decision as such practices are now prohibited under the Taylor law. Simultaneously, it can also be said that if authorities decide to remove the law then it will increase the number of strikes, as a result of which companies will incur severe losses and the employees who were involved in the strike will be the major sufferers. Thus, both this approach leads to economic downfall. This leaves them authorities with only one option and that is to modify the regulations in order to balance and satisfy the needs of both the employees and their employers. Conclusion After doing a simultaneous research on the implications of Taylor law and the right to strike by public employees, it can be said that public sector employees does deserve the right to demonstrate their disagreements considering the exploitation and oppression that they face in their work places. However, those demonstrations sometimes lead to severe consequences hampering the economy of the country as a whole. That is why Taylor law was designed in order to prohibit such actions. However, it comes with its fair share of consequences as its rigidity often renders the employees powerless and shifts the bargaining power towards the employers. This approach is not good for the economy as well. Thus, in conclusion it can be said that, the law needs to be reformed to a certain degree in order to restores the balance of power between employees and employers and at the same time respecting the need to safeguard public safety (Swearengen 2011, 551). Reference List Bellace, Janice R. 2013. The ILO and the right to strike. International Labour Review: 1-56. Crotty, John M. 2001. “An introduction to the Taylor law.” Accessed 5 November, 2013. http://www.nysdeputy.org/Archives,%20Wage%20Comparisons/Taylor%20Law%20Overview.pdf Lacampagne, Suzanne C. 1983. The public sector right to strike in Canada and the United States: A comparative analysis. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 6: 509-532. Milne, Seumas. 2011. “Five reasons public service workers are right to strike.” Accessed 5 November, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/28/public-service-workers-strike O'Neil, Terry and E.J. McMahon. 2007. “Taylor Made: The Cost and Consequences of New York's Public-Sector Labor Laws.” Accessed 5 November, 2013. http://www.empirecenter.org/special-reports/2007/10/taylormadereport.cfm PERB. 2013. “The Taylor Law.” Accessed 5 November, 2013. http://www.perb.ny.gov/stat.asp Peterson, Andrew. 1988. The implication of a private damage action from the Taylor law's ban on public sector strikes. Pace Law Review 8: 571-605. Samuelsen, John. 2012. “Public employees need the right to strike.” Accessed 5 November, 2013. http://labornotes.org/2012/01/public-employees-need-right-strike Swearengen, Kate M. 2011. Tailoring the Taylor law: Restoring a balance of power to bargaining. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 44: 513:551. Swiatkowski, Andrzej M. 2005. European Social Charter: The right to strike. Managerial Law 47: 284-301. Read More