The positive face of US public sector collective bargaining

Solidarity with US unions

We are one campaign

24 March 2011

As part of the TUC's support for the US trade union movement's campaign to defend collective bargaining rights for public sector workers, we are publishing information on the background to the campaign every day in the fortnight before our day of solidarity on Monday 4 April.

Today, Professor Paul F Clark explains why public sector collective bargaining is so important.

My first experience with collective bargaining was as an 18-year-old factory worker. The factory was hot and the work was hard and monotonous. I had the worst job in the place and it was a tough way to make a living. But on breaks the old-timers would tell us new hires how much better things were since the union had been voted in. The pay was decent, there was an emphasis on safety, and a seniority system was in place that allowed employees to bid on better jobs after they had been there awhile. They told me to hang in there and after six months or so I could probably bid for a better job. Without that option, I probably would have quit within a week!

At that young age, collective bargaining had already made a difference in my life. For many years now I have taught about, and done research on, the role of collective bargaining in democratic societies. The evidence is clear that over the past several decades, collective bargaining has had a positive and significant impact on the lives of millions of Americans.

The recent efforts of the governor of Wisconsin to roll back the rights of public employees in that state has focused the nation's attention on collective bargaining to a degree that we have not seen in years. Clearly, other states facing fiscal crises are watching the battle there. Unfortunately, because of the highly political and partisan nature of the fight in that state, the on-going debate has shed more heat than light.

The modern system of collective bargaining was developed during the 1930s to address the imbalance of power between employers and employees. The Wagner Act, passed in 1935, created a system of collective bargaining which leveled the playing field and provided a structure that reduced labor strife. This law gave most workers in the private sector the right to form unions, bargain and strike.

In the decades that followed, private-sector unions won wage gains that improved the standard of living of American workers. These workers became active consumers, buying goods and services that created more jobs and more profits. The result was an era of unmatched prosperity and the emergence of an American middle class that was the envy of the world.

Government employees, however, were not covered by the Wagner Act and, without the ability to bargain, their living standards fell further behind their private-sector counterparts. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, these workers pushed for collective bargaining rights and in 1959, Wisconsin became the first state to grant this right to public employees. Today, a majority of states allow at least some state and local government workers to bargain collectively.

The emergence of public-sector bargaining helped government workers make up much of the pay gap that had developed between them and private-sector workers. As a result, millions of public employees were brought into the middle class.

Given this history, the movement to repeal this right is, by most definitions, a radical proposal. A reversal of 50 years of practice should occur only after an issue has been thoroughly studied, analyzed and debated. This has not occurred in Wisconsin where Gov. Scott Walker has characterized the introduction of his bill as dropping 'the bomb.'

Walker, and other governors who are trying to take collective bargaining rights away from public employees, make no mention of the positive contributions this process has made over many decades. These contributions are significant.

Over the years, collective bargaining raised compensation for public employees, increasing their standard of living. This enabled public employers to compete in the labor market for higher quality workers and attract better employees who, in the past, would not have considered a career in government.

Public-sector bargaining is also an exercise in democracy, which is why virtually all democratic nations in the world embrace it, and why it is one of the first things that dictators suppress when they take power. Many people are not aware that the right to form and join unions is considered a universal human right under Article 23 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. And the evidence is clear that providing a mechanism through which employees can participate in decisions about their employment can increase job satisfaction and reduce one of the employers' most significant costs?turnover.

Although it happens behind the scenes, public-sector unions also regularly work in partnership with governments to improve services and cut operational costs. Employees who do the work of government day in and day out have unique knowledge and experience that employers can tap into. The collective bargaining process provides a structure through which these partnerships can be built.

An additional benefit of bargaining is that it allows compensation to increase when reasonable and be reduced when necessary. In the face of the current economic crisis, government employees in most states have already agreed to pay cuts of one form or another. In Wisconsin, public sector unions have indicated their willingness to take a seven percent pay reduction in the form of increased pension and healthcare contributions. The fact is unions are helping to address the fiscal challenges governments face.

Lastly, much has been made of unions' involvement in the political process. This might be problematic if they were the biggest source of the money flowing into our political system. In fact, while the three largest progressive contributors in the 2010 elections were unions, the other seven in the top 10 were either conservative groups or employer organizations. And those groups contributed a total of $125 million during the campaign, compared with $38 million for the three unions combined.

One of the most important roles unions play is to act as a counterbalance to the power and influence of employers and other groups. Most Americans believe strongly in the idea of checks and balances and understand that unchecked power, whether in a workplace or in politics, is a dangerous thing. While the influx of big money in politics may be lamentable, without unions one side of the political spectrum, the right, would basically own government.

Walker appears not to know, or care, about the long-term positive benefits of collective bargaining. The public takes a different view. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in late February, 61 percent of Americans oppose taking away public employee collective bargaining rights. And a recent survey in Wisconsin found that 74 percent of voters oppose Walker's plan as long as public employees agree to concessions.

Walker's efforts to dismantle the system of bargaining for public employees that has served the state well seems much more about what is best for Walker and his party then it is about what is best for Wisconsin. It appears to be a cynical exercise in political opportunism that will increase his party's political advantage and turn back the clock on Wisconsin's public-sector workforce by half a century.

Prof. Paul F. Clark is head of the Department of Labor Studies and Employment Relations, at Pennsylvania State University.