Should Public Employees Be Allowed to Strike - Coursework Example

Should public employees be allowed to strike? Should public employees be allowed to strike? The question of whether employees inpublic service should be allowed to strike is a debatable issue. Congress has passed laws at government level that seek to control and tackle the issue of strikes among the federal employees. At the state level most states have also passed laws that seek to manage how employees relate with their employers. Employees relate with their bosses using a variety of mediums. Employees can opt for constructive solving of issues for example through deliberation. They can appoint representatives to talk with relevant management or they can use the allowed medium within any individual company. When there is no compromise between the relevant parties in order to reach an agreement, workers hence become more aggressive. The employees out of utter frustration can decide to have a go slow or they can opt for a full strike whereby they don’t work or visit the work place. Strikes come out of dissatisfaction of employees towards their employers. On most cases employees may be unfairly treated, paid very poorly, work in conditions that harbor health hazard characteristics or the systems of work do not allow employee promotion. Hence when all the above situations are not met and the management is not ready to listen, employees normally have no choice but to send out a message with big words. Human resources laws dictate that, management has an obligation of care towards the employees. Similarly employees have an obligation to allow management a chance to solve issues critically. Labor history and employee, employer relationship has necessitated for drafting of laws that protect or manage labor relations between the government, private entities and their employees. For a long time, employees have always differed with management and some of the strikes have led to losses and discomfort on the rest of the public. While employees strike, there will always be a certain sector on the economy chain that will hurt out of this. Hence this paper and relevant stake holders alike, question whether it is always right for employees that serve a wide majority of the public to engage themselves in strike when they are in need of articulating issues to their employer. For instance, it would be sensible to ask whether doctors should engage in strikes and leave the patients to die, and why would construction workers strike with a certain degree of freedom while both are working for a wage or a salary. While an employer is busy risking a strike from his employees through, his defiance of their issue articulation mannerism, he also risks affecting other sectors. Employee strikes actually affect situations in the economic system that congress came to note about before drafting relevant laws. When workers go on strike, this always has the effect of affecting commerce in the following ways-: I. Affecting safety, instruments and operations of commerce. II. Happening in a flow of commerce III. Effects on raw materials flow, prices, main manufacture of final product, and uncontrolled access of products in the market. IV. Diminution of wages to a level of disruption on commerce factors such as goods flow and impairment. National labor relations act came to be after its enactment by the congress. Congress had a motive of protecting employees and employers. The law also had a purpose of doing away with some aspects of worker strikes that lead to the economy of USA hurting due to strikes which later hurt commerce. (NLRA, 1935) The act identified that, when the right to strike is taken away from an employee, who will then work under a shadow of an employer who has come into some sort of cooperation with another employer, this will have an effect of shifting the equilibrium towards the employer and their companies will negatively affect the employee which will then automatically affect the commerce of an economy, also known as commerce suppression. This is the situation of inequality level of bargaining that cause-: a. Depression of wage rates. b. Depression of purchasing power of wage employees. c. Uncompetitive wage rates d. Poor working conditions in the industries. The act hence notes that experience has proved a basic few facts on right of employee to strike. When an employee has the liberty of organizing themselves into groups for the sole purpose of collective bargaining this has the aspect of benefiting commerce, since this protects commerce from injurious aspects, interruption, and impairment while promoting commerce flow. The right for collective bargaining offers a way of solving situations that is friendly and advantageous to business and commerce. In the MMB Act of 1968, when a worker has been armored with this right of strikes and collective bargaining platform, the employee is always at common level of deliberation with the employer. This means there is always equality at a level of employer and employee. Both of them will have equal bargaining power. Employees might have the right to form organizations of labor, but experience brought out that, some of these organizations conduct their business with an intention of deliberately disrupt the flow of trade and commerce. The organizations conduct themselves in such a way as to affect the general public and the streaming of goods and services in the economy. The national labor relations act, in full recognizance of these malicious behaviors of labor organizations put it out that for a full guarantee of the rights of employees. (KEMERER, 2009) In return labor associations should desist from unfair practices. The act though a protector of employee rights also bargains with the organizations for fair treatment. Therefore the policy in the USA is that, for nice flow of aspects of commerce, with due intention of elimination of handles, and obscurities the employee must be given a right to collectively bargain for their needs and concerns. Hence the act gives a worker the right to involve themselves in associations, or organizations that will then appoint leaders or spokes persons who will be clearly articulating issues to the employers. This is a right that is fully protected by the act. The act is very advantageous to employees who work in the private sector. A private company by all respects will always aim to fully maximize on profits while working hard to reduce expenses. It does not matter how they have to do it, but if it means ignoring competitive wages on the employee, then chances are high that this is what will happen. When this was noted that is why this act came to be. Hence the employees from private companies will have the advantage of forming associations whose existence is basically for employee welfare. Therefore these employees can always go on strike if and only if they have a legitimate reason of not being listened to. And it is a power that they utilize when situations call for its usage. This is not the case with employees from public companies. In public employment an employee might be employed by the government or corporations related to government, or organizations that directly deal with the public. These employees find themselves in compromising situations of not being able to engage in strikes or act as a go slow situation. In most cases, when a public employee goes on strike, this can be regarded as a situation of breaking of law. Meyers-Milias Brown act chapter specifically handles the situations with public employees. At government level, public employees cannot go on strike, but down the chain, some public employees can utilize some aspects in order to engage in collective bargaining. In California though, a public employee, and by a public employee, this means any individual who has been employed by any agency related to the public, and even employees from departments of fire from cities to district level, have a right to be heard by their employer about any grievances that they might have. The MMBA act has a sole purpose of promoting and assisting of communication between a public employee and their employer. The act believes and advocates for the rights of public employees in California. Hence the act provides a way for public to talk and bargain on their wages, terms and conditions, hours of work and safety in the course of their work. The act also seeks to improve, the relationships between employers and employees, by allowing the employees to form associations and organizations that will be representative of their welfare to their respective public employment agencies. The act simply, without having the character of dominance over other existing laws seeks to just offer an orderly way of communicating by the employee and their employer. The act seeks to strengthen the quality of relationship between an employee and the public employer. It gives an employee rights that the national government cannot accord. The act also goes ahead and defines the duties of a public employer. It defines the responsibilities of a public agency on their employees. They are responsibilities that also touch on the importance of collective bargaining and the need to respect those rights in California. Allowing a public employee the right to form an association for the sake of bargaining is a case of contention. MMBA act has managed to solve some of the contentious issues that may have arisen between an employee and the public employment agency. Take the case of county sanitation and Los Angeles county employees. The defendant was the association of employees. (Kemerer, 2009). They are tasked with maintenance of sewerage services in the county. Normally mindful of MMBA act the district and the association of employees had always had a chance to have a negotiation agreement on salaries and working conditions. But in the year 1976, almost 75% of employees working for the district went on strike. This was due to negotiations between the district and union going towards the wrong direction. The negotiation failed to produce any new MOU. Though the strike lasted 11days, the district only managed to tackle their duties through the remaining 25% and utilizing management personnel. The strike ended on terms of a new MOU though it was similar to the one before the strike happened. Since the employees resumed their work after 11days, without improvement on their prior arrangement, the district decided to go to the courts and seek for tort damages. The court decided that the strike was not lawful and hence, the district was awarded compensation. The shows that, though the employees have a right to form associations that assist in their bargaining, they do not have a right to go on strike because this leads to delay in service delivery. Under common law, when employees from the private sector go on strike, this is normally regarded as a form of bargaining, but when government employees attempt the same feat. This can be treated as a crime. But strikes from local county employees have always been treated fairly by the courts of law. Courts have a duty to determine cases on strikes. On the face of it MMBA act actually provide public workers the right to structure associations so as to fight for their own rights in employment. The act also gives responsibilities for public employers to be able to meet their employees representatives and talking with them about the welfare of the rest. It also confers on the public employers the responsibility to allow their employees to form associations in order to create a collective bargaining environment. The MMBA act though does not speak openly about the right to go on strike for public employees. It is therefore a case of open discussion in the courts of law and law makers in California. Courts of law with regard to silence of MMBA act on strikes always maintain that the act of public employees striking is illegal, there are some basic reasons as to why public workforce are never allowed to strike under common law. Some of these reasons include the following-: a. Strikes of public employees undermine the sovereignty of the government. The government will always want to seem as if it’s the authority and power. b. As compared to private employment, terms of public employment cannot accommodate an aspect of collective bargaining. c. Giving public employees right to strike would result in manipulation of the political process, since it’s the legislature which handles matters of employment in public departments. Hence by allowing the employees to strike, they would push their lack to excessive bargaining. d. Public employees on most cases provide services which are targeted at improving welfare of the rest of the public. Hence to allow such employees to go on strike would amount to sabotaging of important public services. This will cause disturbance to the public welfare. Public employees who cannot strike due to safety and risk of public health. Though the NLRA gives rights to employees for them to raise issues through strikes if they are ignored through other means, there are public employees who do not harbor an option to strike in their bag of options. Federal law for instance has outlawed the striking of employees working in rail and airlines across the United States. But this can be viewed as a way of maintaining the economics of a country running. Since if these workers would go on strike nationally this would cause grave chaos across the country. In some instances we would witness a situation where normal citizens turn their anger towards the government and this would not be good for stability of the country. There is a statement that says; sometimes the needs to strike can be overshadowed by the effects of a particular strike. From an ethical point of view some public jobs even if the workers would be supported to hold a strike, they workers in reality should not have this as an option, due to the risk on public safety and risk on public health. This particular job include-: I. Policemen II. Firefighters III. Army IV. Doctors and nurses The above four professions are what holds a country together, man is vicious if allowed to operate without laws, in situation where policemen or the army would strike, the effects of this can be termed as catastrophic. In the streets or the neighborhood, thugs and criminals would have an open day to display their dark trade in open; this would be a matter of public safety and endangering the lives of citizens who expect at least some protection from their government. (Cody, 1992). The case is similar with the army. U.S has a great army in the entire world. May I also mention that the country also has an appetite of attracting enemies. Hence even just a thought of the national army striking; this would be endangering the existence of the country. It does not matter how badly the army has been treated, they cannot possibly go on strike, it is criminal in nature, and the members have that in their oath. Numerous states too have outlawed any strikes that would originate from the fire department, since this has been classified as a case of safety of the public. A good example is the fire that normally originates from the forests during droughts. The department workers work hard to contain this fires, if left unattended this fire would sweep across villages nearby taking among other things the lives of innocent citizens (Slater, 2004). Doctors too are not allowed to strike, the benefits from a strike, would be overshadowed by the number of deaths that would be reported from the citizens. Ethically this is not right. California nurses normally go on strikes amazingly, the reasons behind them being allowed to strike lawfully is a dilemma and should be looked into. Professions such as, doctors, nurses, and other providers of care have ethical clauses in their licenses that do not permit them to engage in strikes despite the law allowing some of them to. Public employees versus private employees There are numerous acts which support collective bargaining by the private sector employees. Most of this acts were meant to protect the all the employees in general but the public employees have presented a situation that make them unique and hence this laws cannot benefit them as much. The main difference between the two, when it comes to strikes is that, private company employees have a right to form associations for collective bargaining, and those associations have been given the power to lead their member into strikes. Public employees on the other hand have a right to collectively bargain through representatives but they enjoy no right allowing them to strike when situations escalate (Najita, 2001). Congress has even passed laws to suppress the right of the public employee to strike. The term of relations between a public employer and the employee is that they do not allow for strikes to happen. While the government has laws that prohibit public employees from strikes, there is no law prohibiting the same form the private employees. Hence the public employee is more monitored than the private employee. Going by the nature of public workers` jobs, you find that, majority of public employees fall in the category of health and security: jobs whose nature and ethical issues cannot permit for the employees to engage in strike. Unfortunately, no jobs in private sector fall into this category. Hence we can conclude that, law and nature have combined to make it impossible for most public employees to engage in strikes since private employees have been empowered to engage in strikes if a situation calls for such an action. The NLRA says that the term employer does not include the inclusion of the government and political divisions. Hence a case of postal clerks vs. Blount the postal boss at that time was a case that attracted a lot of reviews. The clerks argued that, the constitution harbored rights for them to go on strike and they should be allowed. In this case, Blount was on the side of government. The clerks had also put forth that essentiality of public services is not a whole inclusion affair. There are some services whose employees do not deserve any strike order (Walsh, 1992). A judge in the panel in the first hearing said that, it is true that employees of the public nature have a right to come together, form representative group but could not strike. This in one of the judge’s opinion was not sensible. An association should be able to issue a strike threat. He also alleged that it was not easy to know whether a service was essential or not and hence this was referred to the Supreme Court for its determination. Soldiers, doctors, national security people and other guys of equal importance is known fact, and not up to discussion that such people cannot hold a strike, because, it would spell doom to a country. It is almost equivalent to compromise on public security and safety of the public. In 2010, Supreme Court in California held that, in a situation where a public employer would want to stop his employees from striking, he would have to go through PERB- public employment relations board. Hence before an employer would seek assistance and law interpretation from the supreme, they first have to make PERB their first point of contact. Hence PERB would issue the first ruling. The court said that, an employer cannot just make a decision of whether a strike is lawful or not and go to court. They need first to go through PERB. By going to PERB this can be regarded as administrative remedies exhaustion. In a case of local union 103 vs. city of San Jose, operating engineers had introduced negotiations of new terms. The engineers had issued a notice to strike if nothing was done. But the city instead decided to seek assistance from the courts. Injunctive relief was not issued. The court maintained that PERB was to be the first point of contact. It is the responsibility of PERB to hold jurisdictions on such laws and to determine what constitutes employee right to strike. PERB also decides on whether a labor case is to be referred to the courts (Tittle, 2000). Conclusion It is my view that public employees pose a challenge in terms of allowing them to strike. Some of the professions pose ethical dilemma, and it is for example weird that California cannot permit strike among the fire fighters and policemen yet it would allow strikes among the nursing profession. The government got it right by banning strikes from all its government employees, but specific states treat their public employees in different ways, they can allow some employees to strike and prohibit others from the right to strike. Research shows that, even if some employees are allowed to strike they do not do it often. It is my view that national government employees hold the most important aspects of the country, in terms of national security and health. Hence all the national government employees should not be allowed to strike. But the states should review their employee’s jobs and decide on those whose jobs can be brought under collective bargaining blanket. The right to strike is protected and supported by the constitution. It is a right to collective bargaining, but some jobs have ethical characteristics that would cause more harm to the public. Hence in such professions in specific states we can conclude that other mediums should be sort out. References Legislative history of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935. (1985). Washington, D.C: National Labor Relations Board. Cody, W. J. M., & Lynn, R. R. (1992). Honest government: An ethics guide for public service. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Slater, J. E. (2004). Public workers: Government employee unions, the law, and the state, 1900 1962. Ithaca, NY [u.a.: ILR Press. Najita, J. M., & Stern, J. L. (2001). Collective bargaining in the public sector: The experience of eight states. Armonk, NY [u.a.: M.E. Sharpe. Kemerer, F. R., & Sansom, P. (2009). California school law. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Law Books. In Barsook, B., In Platten, C. E., In Vendrillo, C. A., & State Bar of California. (2011). California public sector employment law. Tittle, P. (2000). Ethical issues in business: Inquiries, cases, and readings. Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press. Walsh, J., & Mangum, G. L. (1992). Labor struggle in the Post Office: From selective lobbying to collective bargaining. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Kwong, O. L., Kane, R. F., & Rez, D. G. (2004). California pretrial practice & forms. Costa Mesa, Calif: James Pub. Pynes, J. E. (2004). Human Resources Management for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Read More