The Emergence of Collective Bargaining in Local Government

• Published in: Public personnel management 1980-07, Vol.9 (4), p.287-295
• Main Author: Gerhart, Paul F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Arbitration; Collective bargaining; Government employees; Human resource management; Labor relations; Labor unions; Local government; Net losses; Politics; Power; Public sector
• ISSN: 0091-0260; 1945-7421
• DOI: 10.1177/009102608000900411

Over the past 20 years, there has been a move away from political ally or interest group tactics and toward adversarial relationships. While collective bargaining as it is known in the private sector did not reach the public sector until the mid-20th century, public sector unions did play a significant role in establishing merit systems or in functioning as junior partners of political parties. It was not until the 1950s that these dependent types of unions began to change into independent adversary unions. Since strikes by public employees have limited financial impact, these unions must continue to rely on politics to maintain power. Thus, even where bargaining is legally permitted, public sector unions cannot parallel the essentially apolitical character of private unions. Where binding arbitration is available, public unions have the lowest need for political process reliance, but a mixture of independent adversary relationships and political activity continues to be necessary. Independent adversary unionism is possible only where there is increased union power, but this is not equivalent to a net loss to the public interest. Unions may promote more effective due process procedures and provide potential for greater organizational justice. To some, these gains may not justify the loss of management prerogatives, but the evidence remains inconclusive.