The Right to Strike in the Public Sector - Term Paper Example

The Right to Strike in the Public Sector Introduction The right to strike is a key doctrine in private organizations. It works as the foundation for collective bargaining and pushes compromise between the parties involved. This right bestows a considerable level of power on private workers’ unions and encourages them to address important issues like job security, benefits, and wage. This same power is not granted to public servants or government employees. The federal government criminalizes strikes perpetrated by public servants (Cihon & Castagnera 590). Even those states that acknowledge the right to strike of government employees forbid firefighters and police from participating in a strike, including other employees they consider important (Slater 81). So the question is, should public servants have the right to strike? Overview of the Debate Some argues that public employees should have the right to strike. They argue that as long as private sector employees have the right to strike, public servants should also be granted the same right, except if they are in a rigid ‘governmental’ job like supervising the military or similar duties (Slater 95). Because most public workers’ unions do not have the right to strike, they have a tendency to concentrate on more specific, more ordinary matters. Without the right to strike, not having the power to negotiate job security or pay, they have to look for other matters to make themselves heard and to stimulate the labor force. Thus, many will try to represent even the most terrible employee and bargain on even slight amendments in policy so they can keep an important position within the bargaining body (Marx 101). Basically, advocates of public strikes argue that public servants should have the power to exercise the same methods available to private employees, for they have a similar stake in enhancing working conditions and wages. On the other hand, critics of public strikes frequently argue that public servants should not have the right to strike because the government provides important services which should not be disrupted, and that strikes must not be allowed against a sovereign entity (Marx 99). Services provided by the government have usually been deemed necessary. As proclaimed by Governor Calvin Coolidge in 1919, “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, at any time” (Riccucci 326). Moreover, opponents of public strike argue that, theoretically, strikes against a sovereign entity are not likely, because agents of that government cannot share power with workforce representatives. In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt provided an explanation of this argument (Riccucci 261): The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administration officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people who speak by laws enacted by their representative in Congress. Accordingly, administration officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many cases restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Those opposed to stoppages point out that the strike, as an economic weapon, is inapplicable since government will not be put out of business, nor will it use a tactic such as the lockout… Given these strong, compelling arguments from both sides of the debate, should public servants then have the right to strike? This essay argues that public servants should not have the right to strike. This argument has been well supported and clearly justified by Franklin D. Roosevelt: “A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable” (Slater 87). Forbidding public strikes should be justifiable if alternative ways are available to guarantee a just and impartial handling of employee demands. It is widely known from experience that providing an alternative to strike is the strategy effectively carried out in other circumstances where in the boycott process of negotiating issues led to unfavorable outcomes (Slater 87-89). Interestingly though, it was the unions of the earlier period which became disappointed of the strike as a way of negotiating issues with employers. Why public servants should not have the right to strike? The valid reason for upholding the legal prohibition on public strikes is situated within the essence of government as the representative of all citizens. It is not a structured commercial or business-related entity; it cannot shut down; it cannot expel its workers. The traditional view of strikes as assessments of strength, where in the demands of the market work to limit both union and management, basically does not hold true (Cihon & Castagnera 587); therefore, a public strike becomes an obstruction of the political system, an attempt by a particular group to exploit its power over a particular service as a mechanism with which to pressure the whole community to give in. According to Marx (1969), these methods are worrying enough when they are focused on attacks on the public reserves and pressuring the rerouting of resources allotted for health, housing, education, and other inadequately subsidized civic functions. However, strikes in government departments are ever more oriented toward forcing the community to give in to what unions believe they should do with regard to public policy. In several other domains civil service employees are transforming the strike into economic and political ammunition. When New York proclaimed that it was planning to hand over its public hospitals to more capable voluntary agencies, it confronted a union threat to close down every hospital if the plan proceeded. Even the Fraternal Order of Police, a leader of law and order, has confronted a national strike to stage “the need for more public support of law enforcers” (Marx 164). Justifiable as numerous of the suggested policy reforms maybe, issues of this sort should not be tackled under the pressure of a strike; if not, political representatives will become slaves of disgruntled public servants, acting in response to force, not influence or persuasion. It is possible to work out a public employment relations policy that is effective, a policy that will prohibit strikes that harm the interest of the public while providing fair treatment to government workers. Through this step the government can formulate methods that are sensitive to the ever evolving circumstances and nature of labor relations. Above all, it must differentiate between terms of employment established by the government and those which by appointment or traditional policy fall into the domain specified by the law as appropriate for collective bargaining. The law can confirm the doctrine that there can be no collective negotiations with the state assembly (Riccucci 272). It is not prepared to negotiate over the conditions of legislation with any particular group. Its duty as the representative for all citizens should be protected and its procedure should be summoned only by political petition, not by the demands of suspended services. Because it is impossible to truly bargain on those employment terms established by the state legislature, it is also not possible to have a legal strike in such circumstances. This is currently the case for particular categories of civil service workers, including correctional officials, hospital employees, clerks, and stenographers, where it is supposed that state-wide wage standardization is advantageous (Marx 165-166). However, wherever power can possibly be appointed, a representative should be delegated with whom the worker can negotiate over those provisions comprised in the delegation. Where the government has delegated a representative with power to bargain with the workers, the state should follow a path of promoting collective bargaining in agreement with the public interest. By adopting this measure the state strengthens the flexibility needed in a domain quite dominated by human aspects. The state should also focus on building an environment more favorable to successful negotiation and in this manner the government better guarantee that court mandates and legal bans will be conformed to when they are given or implemented (Slater 133). This process calls for a recognition of the fact that collective bargaining relies on the strike’s opportunity or outcome; that the state then focuses on enhancing the bargaining practices and the ability of all the involved parties rather than embedding deceptive and burdensome processes onto the system. Ultimately, where all other alternatives were unsuccessful in resolving the conflict, the government should be ready to function when legal strikes took place. However, the government should not be an involved party in the bargaining process. The appropriate function of the legislature is to look for the ideal measures to resolve the conflict including the odds of consulting the issue to the highest arbitration agency as an ultimate resort (Marx 144-145). It therefore has the duty to present the particular issue that will be handed over to the third-party arbitrator (Marx 145). At every phase of the conflict the parties must be persuaded to resolve the conflict themselves by compromise or by handing over some or all of the issues willingly to arbitration. Conclusions Based on the discussion, there is no possible alternative to collective bargaining even in the public sector and that enhancing the bargaining process promises the greatest possibility to discourage strikes against the interest of the general public. The way to prevent public strikes rests in the improvement of the process of bargaining, not by finding an alternative to it. With skilled and reliable negotiations, no external entity, no mechanism, and no rigid guidelines are needed to resolve conflicts. For that reason, public servants do not need the right to strike. Works Cited Cihon, Patrick & James Castagnera. Employment & Labor Law. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print. Marx, Herbert Jr. Collective Bargaining for Public Employees. New York: Wilson, 1969. Print. Riccucci, Norma. Public Personnel Administration and Labor Relations. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2007. Print. Slater, Joseph. Public Workers: Government Employee Unions, the Law, and the State, 1900-1962. New York: Cornell University Press, 2004. Print. Read More