Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T12:59:17.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - The Public Sector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2013

William B. Gould IV
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

The National Labor Relations Act excludes governmental or public employees from its coverage. In recent years state and local legislation on the subjects of collective bargaining and labor in the public sector has grown considerably. Forty-one of the states had some form of fairly comprehensive legislation protecting the right of public employees to organize and bargain collectively at the time of the fourth edition. (Some states provide that the public employer need only “meet and confer” with the union, but the practical result is often similar to that under the duty to bargain.)

On the eve of 2011, collective bargaining rights had been expanded for state university faculty and research assistants, and Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, New Hampshire, California, and Massachusetts had all provided for card check recognition of the kind contained in the Employee Free Choice Act. In 2003 and 2004, New Mexico and Oklahoma expanded public-sector collective bargaining. But in 2011 much of this trend began to change. As of April 2011, a total of 744 antiunion bills had been introduced in state legislatures, encompassing “nearly every state.” The most prominent examples were Wisconsin and Ohio. Wisconsin, through its Budget Repair Bill, virtually eliminated collective bargaining for some public employees by (1) limiting wage increases to a particular percent change in the consumer price index; (2) instituting right-to-work legislation; (3) prohibiting automatic dues deductions; (4) providing a mandatory recertification system under which every union would face a recertification election every year and obtain recertification only if 51 percent of the employees in the unit (not just those voting) voted for recertification; and (5) limiting the duration of an agreement to one year. Ohio prohibited both the right to strike and the right to binding interest arbitration, legislation that was repudiated by Ohio voters at the ballot box in the fall of 2011.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Slater, Joseph E., “The Rise and Fall of SB-5: The Rejection of an Anti-Union Law in Historical and Political Context,” 43 U. Tol. L. Rev. 473 (2012)Google Scholar
Slater, Joseph E., “Public-Sector Labor in the Age of Obama,” 87 Ind. L.J. 189 (2012)Google Scholar
Dau-Schmidt, Kenneth Glenn and Lin, Winston, “The Great Recession, the Resulting Budget Shortfalls, the 2010 Elections and the Attack on Public Sector Collective Bargaining in the United States,” 29 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 407 (2012)Google Scholar
Orta, David M., “Public Employee Collective Bargaining in Florida: Collective Bargaining or Collective Begging?23 Stetson L. Rev. 269 (1994)Google Scholar
Wellington, H. and Winter, R., “The Limits of Collective Bargaining in Public Employment,” 78 Yale L. J. 1107 (1969)Google Scholar
Burton, J. and Krider, C., “The Role and Consequences of Strikes by Public Employees,” 79 Yale L. J. 419 (1969)Google Scholar
Gould, W., “Public Employment: Mediation, Fact Finding and Arbitration.” 55 ABA J. 835, 838 (1969)Google Scholar
Befort, Steven F., “Unilateral Alteration of Public Sector Collective Bargaining Agreements and the Contract Clause,” 59 Buff. L. Rev. 1 (2011)Google Scholar
Fourth Circuit Upholds City’s Payroll Reduction Plan as a Reasonable and Necessary Impairment of Public Contract,” 107 Harv. L. Rev. 949 (1994)
Befort, Steven F., “Unilateral Alteration of Public Sector Collective Bargaining Agreements and the Contract Clause,” 59 Buff. L. Rev. 1 (2011)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×