Unionization and Street-Level Bureaucracy: An Examination of Public School Teachers in the United States

• Published date: 01 September 2021
• Date: 01 September 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X19894376
• Author: Zachary Oberfield
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19894376

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2021, Vol. 41(3) 419 –446

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X19894376

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

Unionization and

Street-Level Bureaucracy:

An Examination of Public

School Teachers in the

United States

Zachary Oberfield1

Abstract

Union advocates and critics believe that unionization influences the performance of

public organizations by altering organizational climates and street-level bureaucrats’

experiences and perceptions. However, few empirical works examine this expectation.

This article contributes by exploring how variation in unionization is associated

with street-level bureaucrats’ perceptions of red tape, discretion, leadership, and

accountability. Using nationally representative teacher surveys from the United

States, it examines how unionization was associated with teachers’ perceptions over

a 9-year period. Although there was some evidence that unionization had a negative

association with accountability, the article shows that unionization was not a strong,

consistent predictor of street-level bureaucrats’ perceived experiences.

Keywords

unionization, street-level bureaucracy, red tape, discretion, accountability

Introduction

Over the last half century, the strength of labor unions has deteriorated across many

advanced, industrial nations (Waddington, 2015). In the face of this general decline,

public-sector unions have remained remarkably vibrant (Hugrée et al., 2015; Kearney,

2010). For example, in 2018, 6% of the U.S. private-sector workforce was unionized

compared with 34% of the nation’s public-sector workforce (U.S. Bureau of Labor

1Haverford College, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Zachary Oberfield, Haverford College, 370 Lancaster Avenue, Haverford, PA 19041, USA.

Email: zoberfie@haverford.edu

894376ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X19894376Review of Public Personnel AdministrationObereld

research-article2019

420 Review of Public Personnel Administration 41(3)

Statistics, 2019). Although this fact has been well publicized, public administration

scholars have devoted relatively little attention to studying how unionization affects

the functioning of public organizations and employees (for exceptions, see Davis,

2011, 2013a, 2013b; Nicholson-Crotty et al., 2012). One article argued our focus on

public-sector unions has been “patchy, if not erratic” (Riccucci, 2011, p. 203). Another

noted the irony “that despite the relative strength of unionization and collective bar-

gaining in the public sector, scholarly research has lagged significantly behind the

copious quantity of published research on unions in the private sector” (Kearney,

2010, p. 89). A third recognized that we have little understanding of “how unionization

influences [public employees’] psychological experiences” (Davis, 2013a, p. 336).

This is a problem for two reasons.

First, the debate over public-sector unionization is one of the most important fault

lines in contemporary politics. Critics argue that unions increase costs, foster inertia,

stifle innovation, and limit employee freedom (Donahue, 2008; The Economist, 2011;

Lieberman, 1997; Moe, 2011). In short, they suggest that unionization pushes public

organizations toward bureaucratic dysfunction. As such, since at least the middle of the

20th century, conservatives have supported anti-union political candidates and aimed to

weaken public-sector unions. This has led to high-profile legal and political battles, like

the recent controversy over “right to work” legislation in the United States (Collins,

2012). Liberal candidates and parties, who receive financial and political support from

unions, push in the opposite direction (Moe, 2011). They argue, among other things,

that public-sector unions professionalize workforces and create more stable and equal

workplaces, leading to better citizen experiences and outcomes (Kahlenberg & Potter,

2014). Without empirical scholarship that tests these divergent arguments, public

administration cannot weigh in on this key debate.

Second, at the level of theory, inattention to unionization limits our understanding

of street-level bureaucracy. The street-level bureaucracy literature has devoted atten-

tion to exploring a wide array of influences on the behavior and experiences of front-

line employees (Brodkin, 2012; Lipsky, 1980; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003;

Prottas, 1979). However, few studies have asked how unionization affects street-level

bureaucrats. This is curious because many street-level bureaucrats work in unionized

settings and Michael Lipsky’s (1980) pathbreaking book theorized that unions alter

street-level bureaucratic work. As such, this literature lacks information about a poten-

tially important influence on the experiences and work of street-level bureaucrats.

This article contributes to the public administration and human resource manage-

ment (HRM) knowledge base by studying the unionization of one group of street-level

bureaucrats—public school teachers—in the United States at the beginning of the 21st

century. Due to regional differences, the gradual erosion of union power, and recent

efforts to limit the power of teachers unions (Goldstein, 2014), there is considerable

variation in teacher unionization across space and time. This article exploits this varia-

tion to explore how differences in unionization are associated with differences in teach-

ers’ perceptions of their work. More specifically, it uses three nationally representative

teacher surveys over nearly a decade to examine how differences in unionization are

related to teachers’ perceptions of red tape, discretion, leadership, and accountability.