Public Sector Labor— Management Relations: Change or Status Quo?

• Author: Richard C. Kearney
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X09351827
• Published date: 01 March 2010
• Date: 01 March 2010

Review of Public Personnel Administration

30(1) 89 –111

© 2010 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X09351827

http://roppa.sagepub.com

Public Sector Labor–

Management Relations:

Change or Status Quo?

Richard C. Kearney1

Abstract

As unions in the private sector have continued on what appears to the pessimist to

be a slow march into obscurity and irrelevance, public employee unions and collective

bargaining are thriving in a majority of states. In this article, the author first provides

a brief overview of the relevant scholarly research, and then changes the focus to the

future of unionization and collective bargaining in the public and nonprofit sectors. It is

suggested that the deck continues to be stacked against federal unions and collective

bargaining, but that there are portents for significant gains in the state and local sectors,

depending on bargaining-friendly changes in state and federal law.

Keywords

public employees, unions, collective bargaining

It is a longstanding irony that despite the relative strength of unionization and collec-

tive bargaining in the public sector, scholarly research has lagged significantly behind

the copious quantity of published research on unions in the private sector. The fading

fortunes of labor unions in private employment have been much discussed in the lit-

erature (e.g., Bennett & Kaufman, 2002; Freeman & Medoff, 1984; Goldfield, 1987),

as have the prospects for union revival and resurgence (e.g., Francia, 2006; Milkman

& Voss, 2004; Tillman & Cummings, 1999; Turner, Katz, & Hurd, 2001). But eco-

nomic, structural, and public policy conditions, magnified by fierce management

opposition and punctuated by poor strategic choices by union l eadership, h ave con-

spired to prevent a significant turnaround of some 45 years of membership decline

(see Kearney, 2009, pp. 13-20). Each time the sickly union patient shows signs of

revival, it seems that hopes are dashed against hard realities. For the moment, the private

1North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Richard C. Kearney, School of Public and International Affairs, North Carolina State University, Campus

Box 8102, Raleigh, NC 27695-8102, USA

Email: kearney@chass.ncsu.edu

90 Review of Public Personnel Administration 30(1)

sector unions have placed their bets on congressional legislation that would amend the

National Labor Relations Act to permit employee choice of (a) to vote for or against

union representation through the conventional secret ballot or (b) to substitute signed

authorization cards. The assumption is that unions would win more representation

elections because the “card check” would diminish opportunities for employers to

harass union organizers and suppress union support.1

The cynic is led to conclude that absent approval of this proposed legislation or

other actions or events that produce a significant rebound in union strength, num-

bers, and political influence, private sector unions may soon be relegated to the dusty

far margins of the U.S. economy and society. Labor scholars may choose to perform

an autopsy or pick through the bones of the deceased to speculate on what caused

the death. A more productive alternative would be for labor scholars to leave the

foregoing task to the historians and devote their own time and attention to unions and

collective bargaining in government and the nonprofit sector, which continue to be viable

and dynamic.

In contrast to their sickly private sector counterparts, public employee unions present

a picture of relative strength and good health. This picture has sharpened dramati-

cally from public employee unions’ rough emergence in the nation’s shipyards in the

early 19th century through the 1950s, during which time they succeeded in organizing

only a small proportion of federal, state, and local workers. Suppressed by an unfavorable

legal environment, the argument that negotiating with organized employees constituted

a violation of state sovereignty, and other factors, unions in government struggled to

organize workers, win recognition, and gain bargaining rights. Circumstances changed

in 1962 with President Kennedy’s issuance of Executive Order 10988 guaranteeing

union organizing, recognition, and collective bargaining rights to federal workers. This

date marks the starting point for the contemporary growth and development of union-

ization and collective bargaining at all levels of government.

Kennedy’s executive order did not apply directly to state and local governments but

it did exert a marked stimulus effect. By signaling that the sovereignty argument was

no longer germane and that unionization and collective bargaining were permitted and

even encouraged for federal employees, the executive order inspired union activists

and spurred a growing number of state legislatures to adopt legislation facilitating

union recognition and bargaining. There were, of course, additional factors contrib-

uting to the diffusion of state and local collective bargaining, including the expansion

of the size of government at all levels, the social turmoil and change characterizing

the 1960s, and growing awareness among public workers that unions in the private

sector had registered tangible successes for their membership (Shaw & Clark, 1972,

pp. 901-904). Unions such as American Federation of State, County, and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME) and the American Federation of Teachers saw their opportuni-

ties and seized them.

Nearly half a century has passed since the initial surge in public employee union-

ization and collective bargaining. Union density in government leveled off and then

declined slightly during the 1980s and 1990s. A substantial body of research emerged