Should Public Employees Be Allowed to Strike - Coursework Example

: Should Public Employees be allowed to Strike? Historical Overview of Public Employees and the Right to Strike There exists great controversy today in relation as to whether public employees should be afforded the right to go on strike so as to further their own objectives and get their demands fulfilled. In the early American labor laws, any concerted efforts by a private or public group of employees designed to coerce or injure an employer so as to be able to force this employer into complying with the demands being made by the employees was perceived to be criminal conspiracy and could result in these participants being subject to tort liability as a result of interfering with the employer’s business. However, these impediments were eventually removed and federal legislation began to provide protection to the right for employees to strike. this resulted in increased strikes across various industries as employees were now able to engage in these strikes without having to worry about any legal sanctions of a criminal or legal nature being brought against them as a result of striking (Henry 1274). In 1935, the adoption of the National Labor Relations Act was seen to completely revolutionize the country’s private sector labor law as the act served to grant employees the right to be able engage in certain specific concerted activity free from any disturbance from the government and their employer, the right to collectively bargain as well as the right to choose bargaining agents. However, all these developments in labor laws had very little impact on the public sector employees in the country. In rulings made by the United States Supreme court in 1982, public employees across the country were excluded from the National Labor Relations Act, the court also held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not in any manner encompass federal employees. It is these exclusions of the public sector employees that help to show the clear distinction existing between the public and private sectors. Courts have since then continued to act as a very effective weapon used by public employers so as to be able to stop any public employee concerted activity as these employees are seen to not be afforded the protection allowing them to participate or organize concreted activity as is seen to be guaranteed by federal law to those employees working in the private sector (Henry 1274-1275). Public employees were often seen to be treated in a better manner as compared to their private sector counterparts prior to World War II. The wages received by these public employees were comparable to the ones received by the private sector employees, in addition to this, they also had greater benefits and job security. This balance was soon to shift in favor of the employees in the private sector when the unions in the private sector managed to successfully procure increased benefits and wages for their members. While the public employees were soon to form their own unions, these public employees were unable gain the same benefits as their private counterparts mainly due to the large budget deficits seen at all levels of the government and the constant political pressure on the government demanding that it provides more services for less money (Babin 1272-1273). Nowadays, while it is considered to be quite a common occurrence for employees in the private sector to strike, public employees are nevertheless seen to be generally be denied this right. According Hiltzik (2013) only 11 states in the United States are seen to allow public employees to actively participate in strikes and even so these states impose a number of strict limits to striking employees. One of the most common limit on strikes conducted by public employees is that the police force and firefighters are not allowed to strike, this restriction in particular is seen to have very legitimate reasons as even a small workers by public employees serving in these departments can result in causing an immediate threat to public security. In an effort to try and reduce incidences of strikes being conducted by public employees, the 11 states that allow for employees to strike are seen to employ a number of alternative dispute resolution tactics that have caused incidences of striking public employees to become quite rare. The right of public employees to be able to freely engage in collective bargaining can be perceived to entail a number of important legal aspects such as the right for employees to organize, the right of the employing government body to bargain, the right to strike and the right for compulsory arbitration. The general scope and boundaries of collective bargaining can be seen to mainly be dependent on exactly what the state happens to prescribe. Alexander and Alexander, (968-969) point out that although public employees are seen to enjoy the right to freely associate and even join union bodies, the question as to whether these unions or association can be able to engage in a collective bargaining process is seen to primarily be a matter of the state laws. However according t the country’s constitution, public employees are afforded a constitutional right to be able to join any labor organization, irrespective of whether or not this organization can be able to try and engage with the concerned public agency. In a ruling by the federal court in support of this right, a North Carolina law that effectively forbid public employees from attempting to join labor union was deemed as being unconstitutional as it essentially violated both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In relation to strikes by public employees, the first amendment is seen to protect the innate right of citizen to be able to freely interact with another individual for any purpose that is deemed as being lawful without there having to be any government interference while the fourteenth amendment protects their right to due process (Twomey 353). In a ruling made by the New York court of appeal in a case that contested the prohibition on strikes that had been imposed by Taylor law, the court ruled that statutes designed to prohibit public employees right to strike do not in any way violate the federal or state constitutional mandate to afford equal protection to everyone (Alexander and Alexander 968-969). Arguments against Striking by Public Employees There are a number of arguments that are seen to normally be posed by opponents of public employees being given the right to engage in strikes, one of the key arguments against striking by public employees is that the government is not only sovereign but it is also elected and selected so as to effectively reflect the collective desires of all its citizenry, it is due to this fact that the government should not in any way be subject to any adversarial tactics employed on behalf of a few against the vast majority of the country’s citizenry it represents. Any strike action by public employees against the government can be perceived to be tantamount to a denial of the existing government authority. As a result of the fact that most of the services that are normally offered by the government are usually seen to be offered on a mainly monopolistic basis, unions will be seen to tend to enjoy immense and very unfair bargaining power in the event that they happen to threaten to engage in striking action. This massive bargaining power can be seen in the pensions crisis when public sector unions were seen to threaten the government with mass action over pensions. In addition to this, some or all public employee strikes are commonly seen to actually tend to or eventually harm the public (Lewin et al, 414). As a result of the terms of public employment being set by the legislative body, they are deemed as not being subject to any bilateral collective bargaining. Another reason fronted by opponents of strikes by public employees is that while the private sector is seen to be able to effectively use strategies such as lockouts and even striker replacement against any employees that might happen to be actively participating in a strike, it is not quite possible for the public sector to be able to resort to such strategies as strategies such as lockouts will generally mean that there will be no provision of services. The public sector employees are usually seen to be employed in positions of trust that take years to build upon and it is not quite possible to just hire a striker replacement to fill-in for a striking employee. In the private sector, strikes by employees can be deemed to be quite effective as a result of the fact that the company or organization needs to always focus on their financial bottom lines. It is important for these companies to ensure that they continually make money by selling services and goods to customers at costs that these customers are willing to pay for. In the event that a private company’s employees happen to strike, the company is forced to try and reconsider its position so as to not be cast in any negative light if it is found to be paying its employees much less than what it receives as profit and potentially lose its clients and customers and be forced out of business. On the other hand, governments cannot be able to go out of business as they pay their bills through the funds they receive via taxation. A strike by public employees does not in any way affect its profit margins as the government cannot go out of business and can therefore be able to at times refuse to reach a compromise with striking employees for very long periods of time. Responses to Arguments in Support of Striking by Public Employees There are a number of arguments that have been made in response to justifications denying employees off a right to strike these include: In response to claims that the government is sovereign and represents the collective desires of all its citizenry, it has been claimed that any appeal to popular sovereignty is generally an article of faith that is not capable of being tested in an empirical manner. In addition this, this type of an apple is seen to basically ignore the selfish and pluralist nature of the various pressures and group interests that are seen to widely pervade the entire United States political system and which are seen to commonly form the basis for most actions by the government. In response to the argument that unions would enjoy unfair and a rather enormous bargaining power in the event that they happen to threaten to strike, it has been pointed out that if this argument had any merit, we should have been able to see employee unions being able to successfully negotiate a number of very favorable contracts. However, this is not the case as according to Lewin et al. (414), there exists substantial evidence that although public unions have a very positive impact on wages, the magnitude of this impact is rather minor and smaller as compared to that in the private sector where unions are seen to mostly not be enjoying monopolistic protection. In response to the argument that strikes by public employees generally tend to cause harm after a certain given period of time, Lewin et al (414) asks why this postulation has never been systematically documented. The hundreds of strikes that are seen to have been carried out by public employees since 1965 including 338 protective service strikes conducted between 1965 and 1975, the nonexistent and somewhat minor strike penalties and the fact that there has been a slow growth in the legal right to strike all serve to suggest that strikes by public employees including both firefighters and police men can be considered to be rather minor threats to the general public. Anther justification in support of strikes by public employees is that the general confidence and production among the employees would increase if they are afforded the right to be able to strike. This can be exemplified by the fact that if workers happen to strike so as to receive better working conditions or even a higher pay and the government meets these demands, the workers would be seen to return to work having higher levels of morale as compared to the existing morale levels before the walk-out. The increased worker productivity would be of great benefit to the government. Industrial action is seen to give workers a valuable protest line against miserly wage, unfair hours and working conditions. It can be argued that by denying workers the right to strike, it becomes quite possible for the government to easily impose any new contract changes and terms that they might wish. The most effective tool that both skilled and unskilled laborers have in the event that they happen to feel dissatisfied with their working conditions is to effectively down their tools and either strike or work out. This action then forces the government to try and negotiate with the unions as it tries to once again normalize its operations. It is as a result of this effectiveness that workers should not be denied the right to strike. The Alternatives to Striking that can be used by Public Employees In the event that public employees in a certain state are not allowed to engage in striking activity, it is quite common for alternatives such as mediation and arbitration to be used in the event that a conflict happens to arise. During the arbitration and mediation sessions, a number of key issues are normally established; if the employees work performance is as expected these include the determination of whether there are enough financial resources as well as if the reasons for the dispute are actually true. According to Kerrigan (2012) In the event that the disputing parties experience difficulties in resolving the issue, it is quite common for professional arbitrators to be called in to resolve the issue. Some states are seen to already have in place state laws that help in guiding how the deal will be formulated. These professional arbitrators are normally seen to be called in the event of fire or police. Conclusion Any strike conducted by individuals in any industrial sector of the country always has a negative impact on the country’s economy in addition to imposing unnecessary hardship to people regardless of whether the industrial sector in question is a private or a public sector. However, strikes by public sector employees can prove to potentially be quite damaging as a breakdown in some essential public service sectors such law enforcement, health care services provision, the military and firefighting can put large numbers of people at great risk in addition to crippling the provision of these essential services across the country. While the arguments raised against providing the public sector with the right to strike can at times be perceived to be quite valid, they are however generally outweighed by those calling for the denial of these rights. While the unionization of public employees is allowed for by the constitution, it is critically important for stringent guidelines to be provided so as to avoid the poetical abuse of this power by the unions. Works Cited Alexander, Kern and Alexander, David. American public school law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012. Print. Henry Davis. One More Piece to the PublicEmployee Strike Rights Puzzle. Louisiana. Law Review. Volume 51, Number 6, July, 1991. Print. Hiltzik, Michael. 2013. Why Public employees should have the right to strike. 2013. Web. 15 March 2014. Kerrigan, Heather. 2012. Why Public-Sector Strikes Are So Rare. 2012. Web. 15 March 2014. Lewin, David et al. Public sector labor relations: analysis and readings. Lexington, Mass. : Lexington Books, 1988. Print. Twomey, David. Labor and Employment Law: Text & Cases. Cengage Learning, 2012. Print. Read More