Equity in the Public Workplace: Retrenchment, Employment Security and Alternative Placement

• Author: Arthur T. Johnson
• Published date: 01 June 1983
• Date: 01 June 1983
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/009102608301200207
• Subject Matter: Article

Equity

in the

Public Workplace:

Retrenchment, Employment Security and

Alternative Placement

by

Arthur

T.

Johnson

University

of

Maryland-Baltimore County

or

the first time since 1947 the total number of government

jobs,

federal, state and

local,

declined during the twelve month period of

March,

1981 to February, 1982.

Local

government accounted for nearly

250,000

of the total decline of

300,000

posi-

tions.1 If, as it seems to be the case,

this

decline is more a result of anti-tax sentiment as

reflected by Propositions 13 and 2 1/2 and federal cuts in state and local aid than economic

recession, the trend is not likely to be reversed in the short run.

The

literature of cutback management and public personnel management are making it

clear that the public employee ultimately will bear the burden of retrenchment. The ac-

ronym

RIF's

new place on the Public Administration landscape makes it apparent how sig-

nificant

this

trend is already. Despite

this

recognition, and despite the fact that public mana-

gers have for a long time informally attempted to

assist

their displaced employees, what

Charles

Levine noted in 1979 is

still

the case—no one has addressed the

issue

of a public

employer's

ethical responsibility to its terminated employees.2 The purpose of

this

essay is to

initiate

discussion of that responsibility.

Until

recently, it has been a commonplace that job security is a benefit of public employ-

ment.

This essay explores possible rationales for recognizing an obligation to provide current

public employees with such employment security and examines "alternative placement" (also

known

as employee reassignment, outplacement, re-employment) as one means of responding

to that obligation when termination is necessitated by fiscal conditions.3 Finally, it calls for

re-examination of the merit system with regard to employment security.

Data

and background information for

this

article were collected in a

series

of structured

interviews during the summer of 1981 with the Chief Adminstrative Officers

(CAOs)

and

Personnel Directors of

Maryland's

nine largest counties,4 and in structured interviews

dur-

ing July, 1982, with officials responsible for placement

activities

in

Montgomery

County and

the State of

Maryland.

Counties in

Maryland

possess legal authority and deliver services

similar

to those of

cities

in other states, and, therefore, are analogous to

cities.

The popula-

tion of the smallest jurisdiction is

96,365,

while that of the largest is

665,071.

The

first

series

of interviews, principally concerned with human resource planning in local

government

during periods of retrenchment, consisted of open ended questions and lasted an

average

of one hour. The second

series

of interviews also consisted of open ended questions

and

lasted an average of ninety minutes. The placement programs of

Montgomery

County

and

the State of

Maryland

were selected as part of

this

analysis due to their degree of

for-

malization and the positive attention given them by others (i.e. the United States

Commis-

sion on Civil Rights). This study is in no way intended to represent an evaluation of either

program.

The data from the survey of county official are presented to describe the local ad-

186

Public Personnel

Management

Journal