20
Hurd 6 Working Working Working Working Working USA USA USA USA USA—Summer 2003 WorkingUSA, vol. 7, no. 1, Summer 2003, pp. 6–25. © 2003 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089–7011 / 2003 $9.50 + 0.00. RICHARD W. HURD is professor of labor studies at Cornell University. A consultant with na- tional unions on strategic issues, he is co-editor, with Lowell Turner and Harry Katz, of Rekin- dling the Movement: Labor’s Quest for Relevance in the Twenty First Century (Ithaca: ILR Press, 2001) and, with Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon Friedman, Rudolf Oswald, and Ronald Seeber, of Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Strategies (Ithaca: ILR Press, 1998). In Defense of Public Service Union Strategy in Transition Richard W. Hurd Public-sector unions face the combined threat of massive budget deficits, privatization, and the expanded power of the Republican right. Enthusiasm for labor-management partnerships, evident in the 1990s, has diminished. Priorities have been reordered, and attention has shifted to organizing and the fight against privatization. P UBLIC-SECTOR UNIONS HAVE DISPLAYED HEALTHY DURABILITY for the past twenty years, apparently immune to the economic and political forces that have buffeted the broader labor movement. While unions in the private economy have lost power and seen den- sity decline by more than half, unions of government workers have retained influence and market share. Early in the twenty-first cen- tury, there are signs that this era of relative comfort may be coming to an end. In the 1980s, private-sector unions were sent reeling by the com- bined forces of globalization, deregulation, and increased management hostility. Today their public-sector associates face the parallel threats of massive budget deficits, privatization, and the expanded power of

In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

Hurd

6 WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003

WorkingUSA, vol. 7, no. 1, Summer 2003, pp. 6–25.© 2003 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.

ISSN 1089–7011 / 2003 $9.50 + 0.00.

RICHARD W. HURD is professor of labor studies at Cornell University. A consultant with na-tional unions on strategic issues, he is co-editor, with Lowell Turner and Harry Katz, of Rekin-dling the Movement: Labor’s Quest for Relevance in the Twenty First Century (Ithaca: ILRPress, 2001) and, with Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon Friedman, Rudolf Oswald, and RonaldSeeber, of Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Strategies (Ithaca: ILR Press, 1998).

In Defense of Public ServiceUnion Strategy in Transition

Richard W. Hurd

Public-sector unions face the combined threat ofmassive budget deficits, privatization, and theexpanded power of the Republican right. Enthusiasmfor labor-management partnerships, evident in the1990s, has diminished. Priorities have been reordered,and attention has shifted to organizing and the fightagainst privatization.

PUBLIC-SECTOR UNIONS HAVE DISPLAYED HEALTHY DURABILITY for thepast twenty years, apparently immune to the economic andpolitical forces that have buffeted the broader labor movement.

While unions in the private economy have lost power and seen den-sity decline by more than half, unions of government workers haveretained influence and market share. Early in the twenty-first cen-tury, there are signs that this era of relative comfort may be comingto an end.

In the 1980s, private-sector unions were sent reeling by the com-bined forces of globalization, deregulation, and increased managementhostility. Today their public-sector associates face the parallel threatsof massive budget deficits, privatization, and the expanded power of

Page 2: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

In Defense of Public Service

WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003 7

the Republican right. When addressing their conundrum in the privateeconomy two decades ago, unions exacerbated their problems, as iner-tia and strategic rigidity forestalled an effective response (Hurd 1998).Today public-sector unions are determined to avoid similar mistakesand intend to confront systematically the challenges that they face.

The Aura of Institutional Stability

In 1986 Richard Freeman offered a comprehensive review of two de-cades of public-sector union expansion followed by stability, herald-ing the rise of the “new unionism.” He described a spurt of growth inunion membership during the 1960s and 1970s tied to the politicalprocess and the passage of collective bargaining laws at the federal andstate levels. In this context, he concluded that the methods of public-sector unions are primarily political, and their strategies aimed at ex-panding public budgets and the level of employment (Freeman 1986).

Two years later, in an Industrial Relations Research Association vol-ume on public-sector bargaining, James Stern accepted Freeman’s ex-planation of the rise of government unions and treated them as secureinstitutions. In looking to the future, he forecast continued matura-tion of both unions and the bargaining process, with gradual expan-sion of membership proportional to growth in employment. Hespecifically pointed to the AFL-CIO Public Employees Department(PED) as a potential base for increased political clout (Stern 1988).

In 1994 Leo Troy published a contemptuous interpretation of themainstream analysis. While adopting Freeman’s “new unionism” la-bel and largely concurring with his assessment, Troy portrayed pub-lic-sector unions as creatures of public policy. He argued thatpublic-sector management welcomes unions and cooperates with themin the bargaining process and politically. In this context, the primarygoal is “to redistribute income from the private to the public economy”(Troy 1994, 23). Like Stern before him, Troy depicted the PED as apotential center of power in the labor movement. Grudgingly, hejoined other analysts in predicting long-term security: “The futureof the New Unionism seems assured. Its record . . . since the 1960s

Page 3: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

Hurd

8 WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003

has been an almost uninterrupted one of expansion” (Troy 1994, 158).The IRRA published another volume on the public sector in 1996,

this time focusing on changes in the employment relationship. Free-man contributed a report on survey results, concluding that govern-ment workers support unionization to gain political power, and thatthis option is attractive in part because management is relatively con-strained in opposing organization (Freeman 1996). In this context,the volume’s editors argued that unions face a key strategic choicebetween traditional adversarial distributive bargaining and a coop-erative mutual-gains approach to redesign the delivery of govern-ment services (Belman et al. 1996, 6).

Weighing in on the side of increased collaboration, the 1996 reportof the Secretary of Labor’s Task Force on Excellence in State and Lo-cal Government Through Labor-Management Cooperation concludedthat “traditional approaches to collective bargaining will not be suf-ficient.” The task force praised unions “that support workplace inno-vation and service improvement” and concluded that “the possibilitiesappear to be greater than recognized for labor-management coopera-tion” (Florio and Abramson 1996, 3, 6). This attitude mirrored therationale for the creation of the National Partnership Council (NPC)in the federal sector in 1993 by President Clinton as part of his cam-paign to improve efficiency and quality.

Dynamics of Union Membership

The picture of smoothly evolving union strategy in the context ofinstitutional stability overlooks important details in the dynamicenvironment. With public-sector union density firmly rooted a fewpoints below 40 percent for the past twenty years, there is a naturalsense of immutability. This appearance, however, masks importantshifts in economic activity. In 1991 the public sector accounted for17.51 percent of total employment, but by 2001 this share had droppedby almost one-tenth to 15.85 percent (Hirsch and Macpherson 2002,11, 16). In effect, there has been a form of creeping deunionizationunder the guise of privatization.

Page 4: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

In Defense of Public Service

WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003 9

In addition to the hidden erosion in market share, there is no-table geographic variability. Table 1 divides the states into three equalgroups based on 2001 public-sector union density. Consistent withthe observations of Freeman and others, the high-density states havethe most positive legal environment, while the low-density stateshave right-to-work laws and limited bargaining rights. What is strik-ing is that the low-density states have actually experienced declin-ing fortunes, especially over the last ten years. It is also relevantthat private-sector density in those states averages only 5.1 percent,well below the national standard. This suggests that the fortunes ofpublic-sector unions can indeed be affected adversely by decline inthe private sector, especially when density drops to very low levels.The combination of an unfavorable legal setting and weak private-

Table 1

Dynamics of Public-Sector Unionization by State, 1983–2001

Low- Middle- High-density density densitystates states states

Public sector density 2001 median 16.7% 28.9% 51.9%Relative change in public density

1983–2001 median –25.4% +9.0% +7.8%1991–2001 median –18.0% +5.8% +0.7%

Private-sector density 2001 median 5.1% 7.3% 11.5%Public union bargaining rights 2001

Yes 2 10 17Limited 7 3 0No 8 4 0

Right-to-work state 2001Yes 15 7 0No 2 10 17

Sources: Barry T. Hirsch and David A. McPherson, Union Membership and Earnings Data Book(Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs, 2002), 30–35; idem, Union Membership and EarningsData Book (Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs, 1994), 30–34; Bureau of National Affairs,Collective Bargaining and Contracts Manual, Public Sector Bargaining State Comparison Charts,(laborandemploymentlaw.bna.com/cbnc:8/117/).Note: Including Washington, DC, the states were divided into thirds based on 2001 public-sectordensity.

Page 5: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

Hurd

10 WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003

Table 2

Membership in Public-Sector Unions, 1982 and 2000 (membership in1,000s)

1982–2000

1982 2000 change

EducationAmerican Association of Classified School Employees 150 27 –82%American Association of University Professors 63 45 –29%American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA)* 10 12 +20%American Federation of Teachers* (AFT) 574 736 +28%California School Employees Association (CSEA)* 76 129 +70%National Education Association (NEA) 1,641 2,530 +54%

Public SafetyFraternal Order of Police (FOP) 160 280 +75%International Association of Fire Fighters* (IAFF) 163 227 +39%International Union of Police Associations* 25 50 +100%

State and Local GovernmentAmerican Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees* (AFSCME) 950 1,300 +37%Assembly of Government Employees (AGE) 250 100 -60%Communications Workers of America* (CWA) 85 160 +88%International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)* 150 170 +13%Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA)* 125 130 +4%Service Employees International Union* (SEIU) 560 610 +9%United Automobile Workers (UAW)* 25 32 +28%

Federal (nonpostal)American Federation of Government Employees* (AFGE) 210 197 –6%National Association of Government Employees (NAGE)* 50 40 –20%National Federation of Federal Employees* (NFFE) 52 10 –81%National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) 55 71 +29%

PostalAmerican Postal Workers Union* (APWU) 248 313 +26%National Association of Letter Carriers* (NALC) 230 303 +32%National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees 20 12 -40%National Postal Mail Handlers (NPMH)* 40 50 +25%National Rural Letter Carriers Association 62 98 +58%

Sources:1982: Gifford 1984, 14–38, unless otherwise noted; CWA, LIUNA and UAW: Stern 1988, 54; IBT,SEIU, NAGE, and NALC: Freeman 1986, 46.2000: Gifford 2002 41–66, unless otherwise noted; AFSA, and CSEA: Gifford 2002, 238; FOP(www.grandlodgefop.org) and NPMH (www.npmhu.org): Union Web sites, November 2002; CWA,LIUNA, and UAW: Interviews with union officials, April 2000; IBT (www.teamster.org) and SEIU(www.sieu.org): Union Web sites, April 2000.Note: AGE 2000 estimate based on membership in affiliates that remained independent in 2000.AGE disbanded in 1985.*Affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

Page 6: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

In Defense of Public Service

WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003 11

sector unions indicates that public-sector unions are in decline inthose states where they are least able to resist.

In addition to geographic variation, there are divergent trends inmembership among unions. Table 2 updates a table presented in JamesStern’s 1988 overview and compares membership in 1982 with thatin 2000 for most unions that represent substantial numbers of gov-ernment employees. Because the data are taken from a variety ofsources, most of them relying on self-reporting by unions, they shouldnot be treated as precise measures but rather as reasonable approxi-mations. To lend perspective to the changes in absolute membership,overall government employment increased by almost one-fourth overthe time period covered.

Most of the unions that lost members are independent organiza-tions. Typically their losses involved entire locals or statewide orga-nizations’ leaving to become associated with an AFL-CIO union (some-times after reaching an affiliation agreement, other times after a raidresulting in decertification). It is also noteworthy that unions repre-senting federal workers have not fared well. Once again the legal cli-mate is unfavorable, as federal unions are constrained by a limitedscope of bargaining and an open shop environment.

By contrast, unions representing public safety workers have expe-rienced substantial growth, and the largest education unions havedone almost as well. Again the legal environment is relevant, withpublic safety and education employees having broader coverage un-der public-sector bargaining laws than other state and local employ-ees. Similarly, the postal unions have done better than other federalunions, which fits their expanded bargaining rights (postal unionscan bargain over economic terms, other federal unions cannot).

In addition to the diverging experiences in membership growth, itis important to point out another key difference. All the units of thefederal and postal unions operate under a single law, and their politi-cal activity is naturally focused on the U.S. Congress. As a result,strategic decision-making tends to be centralized. By contrast, thelaws regulating collective bargaining at lower levels of governmentvary by state, and sometimes even by municipality. In this setting,

Page 7: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

Hurd

12 WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003

unions decentralize representational functions, political action, andstrategic decision-making. The national union sets broad direction,but resources and authority to implement decisions rest with the stateand local affiliates. Since approximately 85 percent of public-sectorunion members are employees of state or local government, the normis a decentralized structure.

The Evolution of Union Strategy

After rapid expansion in the 1960s and 1970s, public-sector unionssettled into a framework largely patterned on the private-sectorexperience.1 They embraced the servicing model under which unionofficers and staff assume responsibility for the technical aspectsof negotiations and contract enforcement. Because governmentworkplaces are managed in the context of both the collective bar-gaining agreement and civil service regulations, expertise of a le-galistic nature is especially important for those performing therepresentation function. Furthermore, all aspects of the labor-management relationship are influenced by the political process,requiring substantial resources and specialized skills. In this set-ting, union staff assume broad responsibility for the functioningof the union, while members are essentially passive consumers ofunion services.

Public-sector unions operate in a less hostile environment thantheir private-sector counterparts. They interact with elected officialswhose political future might be enhanced by union support, anddeal daily with administrators who are career bureaucrats often pro-tected under the same civil service regulations as union members.Activism is often less important to the union’s success than profes-sional skill and long-term relationships. Combined with legal restric-tions on strikes, and the reality that organizing campaigns are seldomcontested vigorously, the result is that the experience of public-sectorunions is seldom defined by struggle.

National leaders of public-sector unions observed the 1980s devas-tation of unions in the private economy with detachment. Public-

Page 8: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

In Defense of Public Service

WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003 13

sector unions were not affected by globalization, deregulation, cor-porate deunionization initiatives, or the conservative stance of theNational Labor Relations Board. Although a public-sector event, thedemise of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization wasviewed as an aberration born of that union’s ill-advised tactics andisolation from other labor organizations. There was concern aboutbudgetary pressures and newfound interest in privatization amongelected public officials, but these issues were addressed in the contextof the existing strategic model with minor modifications in politicaland bargaining functions.

Nonetheless, the larger public-sector unions within the AFL-CIOjoined the coordinated response to the crisis that confronted thebroader labor movement. In addition to contributing to efforts toredefine the role of the federation, some of these unions reexaminedtheir own goals and effectiveness. Within the AFL-CIO, the PED of-fered public-sector unions an opportunity to coordinate on particu-lar issues facing them during this period of turmoil elsewhere. Startingin the mid-1980s, the PED emphasized labor-management coopera-tion as a new strategic direction. This was fitting in light of the dis-tinction being drawn between “high-road” and “low-road” approachesto industrial relations. With characteristically less animosity thanwas typical in the private sector, the government workplace seemedto be an ideal laboratory to experiment with “high-road” methodssuch as joint labor-management projects.

After the election of Bill Clinton as president in 1992 and the ensu-ing attention to “reinventing government,” the PED interest in labor-management cooperation appeared to be appropriate preparation forthe NPC and the secretary of labor’s task force (of which the PEDpresident was a member). During the 1990s, public-sector unions col-lectively embraced the concept of labor-management partnership. TheAmerican Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees’(AFSCME) Redesigning Government offered practical steps for localunions to use partnerships to accomplish the twin goals of improv-ing the delivery of public services and strengthening security forworkers and their unions. Similarly, three federal unions (American

Page 9: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

Hurd

14 WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003

Federation of Government Employees [AFGE], National TreasuryEmployees Union [NTEU], and National Federation of Federal Em-ployees [NFFE]) released Total Quality Partnership: A Vision for the Fu-ture, embracing the NPC concept and calling on the president toenhance union security and expand the scope of bargaining.

By the end of the 1990s, enthusiasm for the potential of coopera-tion was on the wane in union circles. Although there were success-ful partnerships in some federal agencies, unions were disappointedthat the NPC had not delivered expanded bargaining rights or unionsecurity provisions. The AFGE staged a major public campaign againstthe Clinton administration under the acronym SWAMP, for “Stop Wast-ing America’s Money on Privatization.” The secretary of labor’s taskforce released its report calling for joint labor-management efforts toimprove the quality of public services, but Robert Reich (who ap-pointed the task force) left the administration, and the recommenda-tions were not vigorously pursued.

In 1998 the AFL-CIO announced the closing of the PED, symboli-cally ending labor-management cooperation as a strategic prioritywhile simultaneously reducing the potential for public-sector unionsto address their mutual concerns collectively. The demise of the PEDreflected a growing conviction that the challenges facing unions wereno longer clearly distinguishable based on the public/private-sectordivide. As AFSCME organizing director Jim Schmitz explains, “Withinthe federation the public/private distinction is no longer meaning-ful; . . . it is a better idea not to balkanize but to unite around acommon struggle.” The attention of public-sector unions shifted backto the political arena, with AFSCME president Gerald McEntee chair-ing the AFL-CIO Executive Council’s committee on political action.

A Threatening Environment

By the end of the Clinton administration, it was clear that privatizationwas no longer an idle threat. The federal and postal workforces hadshrunk by nearly 20 percent relative to total employment during theClinton years. “Reinventing government” essentially translated into

Page 10: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

In Defense of Public Service

WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003 15

increased reliance on market forces, and the result was a transfer ofjobs to the private sector. Support for this initiative under the guise ofimproving government service signaled a new bipartisan attractionto privatization, with ominous implications for public-sector unions.

Moderates like Clinton, whether Democrat or Republican, offer con-ditional support for privatization. The more ideological Republicanright, however, supports the dismantling of large segments of the gov-ernment bureaucracy so that privatization becomes the end rather

than simply a method to improve effectiveness. This philosophy wasreflected in the title of a bill introduced in 1997 by Senator CraigThomas (R-WY), the Freedom from Government Competition Act.

A number of recent developments at the state level demonstrate thepolitical right’s animus toward public-sector unions. The scope of bar-gaining for teachers’ unions was reduced in Michigan, payroll deduc-tion of union dues for state employees was circumscribed in Colorado,a right-to-work law was enacted in Oklahoma, and limits were placedon the use of union funds for political activity under the guise of “pay-check protection” in several states. All of these restrictions on unionswere championed by conservative Republicans.

The intensity of the attack is increasing at all levels of government,with a popular President Bush in the forefront in the wake of theRepublican victory in the 2002 midterm elections. Shortly after hisdisputed victory two years earlier, Bush had signaled his anti-unionleanings with a series of appointments, legislative proposals, and ex-ecutive orders. Selection of Elaine Chao of the Heritage Foundationas secretary of labor was unsettling, especially given Heritage’s long-standing opposition to protective labor legislation and support forinitiatives that would weaken unions. Although he did not succeed,Bush’s proposal for “paycheck protection” within a few weeks of in-auguration was taken as retribution for labor’s effective political ac-

Shortly after his disputed victory [in 2000], Bush had signaledhis anti-union leanings.

Page 11: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

Hurd

16 WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003

tion program widely credited for Gore’s popular vote victory. And inthe federal sector, Bush’s executive order terminating the NPC endedany hopes of labor-management cooperation.

The Bush administration adopted a hard-line stance toward unionsrepresenting federal employees, and the hostility heightened afterthe September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. First an executive order endedunion representation in five sections of the Justice Department. Thenwhen the decision was reached to federalize airport security opera-tions, the administration announced that union rights would also bedenied for airport screeners. When he proposed to create the Depart-ment of Homeland Security, the president insisted that he shouldhave the option to deny employees of the new department coverageunder civil service regulations and the Federal Labor Relations Act.When unions persuaded allies in the U.S. Senate to stall passage ofthe Homeland Security bill, President Bush personally campaignedagainst several Democrats in tight Senate races on this specific issue,in effect accusing them of being unpatriotic.

The president’s effort paid off and the Republican Party gained con-trol of the Senate effective January 2003, while increasing its marginin the House to twenty-four. This outcome creates a clear threat to thefuture of public-sector unions. Because they rely so heavily on politi-cal influence as opposed to economic leverage, public-sector unionshave much to lose in a negative political environment. To understandthe depth of the challenge, it is instructive to compare the currentsituation to that twenty years earlier under Ronald Reagan.

The Senate majority leader now is Bill Frist of Tennessee, whosevoting record on labor issues is only 2 percent correct according tothe AFL-CIO’s rating system. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert ofIllinois has achieved a 7 percent rating, while the chair of the HouseEducation and Workforce Committee (which handles all labor legis-lation) is Ohio’s John Boehner, who votes with labor only 3 percentof the time (congressional ratings available at aflcio.org). These vot-ing records contrast starkly with those of congressional leaders twentyyears ago during the Reagan years. In 1983 the Senate was controlledby Republicans as it is in 2003, but the majority leader was the mod-

Page 12: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

In Defense of Public Service

WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003 17

erate Howard Baker with a 27 percent AFL-CIO rating. The Speaker ofthe House was Democrat Tip O’Neill, a close ally of organized laborwith an 87 percent rating (Ehrenhalt 1984).

The leaders of Congress, then, share the president’s skeptical views ofunions. Bush did not wait for the new Congress to take the offensive.After the November 2002 election, he pushed his version of the Home-land Security legislation through the lame duck session of Congress,reduced the pay raise due federal employees by one-fourth, issued anexecutive order that subjects nearly half of the federal government’scivilian jobs to privatization (in effect implementing the unsuccess-ful Freedom from Government Competition Act), and formed a com-mission to review the viability of the Postal Service (Aversa 2002;Stevenson 2002).

The altered political climate at the federal level is mirrored in manystate governments. Democrats lost seven state legislatures in the elec-tion, and Republicans control twenty-one states in 2003 comparedto seventeen for the Democrats. This is the strongest position for theRepublican Party at the state level in fifty years (Casse 2003). Theimplications for unions in the states under Republican control areas ominous as at the federal level. In a foreshadowing of what is tocome, the president’s brother, Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, hasprivatized 10,000 state jobs and is openly attacking unions that rep-resent state employees. At his 2003 inauguration, Governor Bushrenewed his call to “make government less necessary,” painting apicture of state office buildings “empty of workers—silent monu-ments to a time when government played a larger role than it de-served” (Kennedy 2003).

Exacerbating the dismal political prospects is the widespread spec-ter of massive state budget deficits. The sluggish economy and a steepdrop in tax revenues are projected to create deficits for fiscal year2003 averaging about 15 percent (Feldman and Marlantes 2002). Evenwithout an anti-union political tide, the deficit would translate intofewer jobs for public-sector union members. Bipartisan efforts to con-trol spending and improve government efficiency will intensify, whilean attack on the very legitimacy of government employment and

Page 13: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

Hurd

18 WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003

public-sector unions could gain momentum under the increasinginfluence and political power of the Republican right.

Contemporary Union Strategy

There is nearly universal agreement among national leaders of pub-lic-sector unions that the threats they face are real, and not transitoryaberrations. The political environment has heightened the level ofurgency and forced unions to reorder strategic priorities. Enthusiasmfor employee involvement, partnerships, and mutual gains, so wide-spread in the mid-1990s, has diminished markedly. Attention hasshifted to organizing and the fight against privatization. The neworientation is evident in the pronouncements of national leaders ofpublic-sector unions, and increasingly in practice at all levels.

Several unions have codified their priorities in formal strategic plans.For example, the AFGE executive council adopted “Getting to 2006:A Survival Kit for AFGE,” the AFT released its “Futures II” report in2000, ten years after its first national strategic plan, and the ServiceEmployees International Union (SEIU) Public Services Division de-veloped its own vision statement and goals as part of the union’s“New Strength Unity Plan.” Other unions also have gone throughformal self-evaluation, and several now have standing committeesthat conduct environmental scans, monitor the union’s progress inimplementing new programs, or otherwise address strategic issues.Even those public-sector unions that have not engaged in a formalplanning process have shifted emphasis and are reevaluating meth-ods, options, and internal structure.

Though the response to external threats has not been coordinatedformally across public-sector unions, there is a notable convergenceat least at the national level. In some unions the change in practice islimited to escalated awareness and intensified zeal in selected pro-grams. In several unions, though, there is a fundamental effort toredefine the organization. Unlike some private-sector unions that havesought transformation through dramatic top-down restructuring ora massive shift of resources to organizing, the norm in the public

Page 14: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

In Defense of Public Service

WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003 19

sector is an attempt to orchestrate a smooth metamorphosis by sys-tematically reordering priorities, with the ultimate goal of advancingto a higher level of effectiveness. In this context, several unions havedesigned internal campaigns to mobilize members in support of newpriorities, while others are complementing the metamorphosis in strat-egy with education programs to promote leadership development.There are five common elements in the programs for strategic change.The degree of emphasis varies across unions and by state dependingon the political environment, with the consensus including the fol-lowing initiatives in approximate order of importance:

ï Intensify political action

ï Fight privatization

ï Expand organizing activities

ï Pursue partnerships where possible

ï Support labor movement revitalization.

Conspicuous in its absence from this list is collective bargaining.The commitment of public-sector unions to bargaining effectivenesswill continue. Some unions even list it prominently when they enu-merate goals. Most are very concerned about balancing traditionalrepresentational services in the workplace with other activities suchas political action and organizing. However, the consensus view isthat in the current environment, it is unrealistic to promote changethrough the bargaining process alone. Because other areas of unionpractice are more central to the transformation process, they domi-nate strategic discussions as described below.

Intensify political action. Public-sector union operatives know thatsuccess in both representation and organizing is directly related topolitical influence. It is natural, then, that they would respond to thechallenging environment by increasing the intensity of their politi-cal activity. The new initiatives include efforts both to engage mem-bers and to more effectively deploy staff. The AFT’s Futures II “call

Page 15: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

Hurd

20 WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003

to action,” for example, provides for increased outreach to membersto recruit political activists and increase contributions to the union’spolitical action fund, and also recommends greater contact with leg-islators and expanded coalitions to build political power.

The elevated attention to politics is especially noticeable at the fed-eral level and in states where the balance of power has shifted to theright. The importance of an effective opposition was stated succinctlyby International Association of Fire Fighters president Schaitberger earlyin 2003: “With the Congress elected in this cycle, at best we have enoughvotes in the Senate to keep from getting murdered.” But not all theattention will be on defending the status quo. There is also great inter-est in strengthening union rights in states with a more favorable po-litical climate, and at the local level where municipal ordinances canenhance union bargaining power and organizing potential.

Fight privatization. There are two general approaches associated withefforts to oppose privatization. The first is to craft a pragmatic re-sponse. This includes using bargaining and the political process tosecure the right for government agencies (and their unionized em-ployees) to compete with contractors, bidding for work based on costsand quality. The emphasis on quality has increased, with unions likeSEIU specifically committed to “ensuring reliable public services” asa basis for keeping work in-house at government agencies. Unionsalso carefully monitor the performance of major contractors, seekingto expose abuses and cost overruns.

A second approach has gained in importance, focusing on politicalideology. AFSCME openly ties efforts to fight privatization with op-position to “right-wing political extremism.” Allyne Beach of theAFL-CIO Work in America Institute notes that because of the ideo-logical battle, unions “must think more about our role in preservingour industry, the public sector.” Similarly, National Association ofLetter Carriers (NALC) president Vince Sombrotto says, “There is nosecret about priority number one—we have to help save the PostalService.” The fight against privatization, then, is no longer viewed asa problem limited to services that are duplicated in the private sector

Page 16: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

In Defense of Public Service

WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003 21

and thus susceptible to competition, but rather as a struggle to de-fend the very legitimacy of government.

Expand organizing initiatives. Although public-sector unions do nothave an urgent need to add members, they have joined other unionsin elevating the importance of organizing. Like AFSCME, most firstemphasize a commitment to fight for current members through thetraditional avenues of politics and bargaining; then they couch in-creased attention to organizing in the context of building strengthfor the future. Many unions have added resources for organizing as adirect result of strategic planning.

There are four basic components of the composite organizingagenda. First, in those states and municipalities without bargaininglaws, organizing encompasses efforts to secure representation rights,along with the formation of locals that assist workers in exercisingvoice without formal contracts. The number of these pre-union for-mations has increased in recent years, sponsored, for example, by theCommunications Workers of America (CWA) in Mississippi and theSEIU in Georgia. Second, in those jurisdictions with laws that includeright-to-work provisions or other versions of the open shop (such asthe federal sector), much of the emphasis on organizing is internal—recruiting among nonmembers in units already covered by a bar-gaining agreement. Third is to identify unrepresented units in thoseareas and agencies where the union already has a bargaining pres-ence. Several unions have conducted detailed “audits” of state andlocal governments in order to locate potential organizing targets. Thefinal organizing approach is to follow the work into the private sectorand organize government contractors. As American Postal WorkersUnion (APWU) organizer Mark Diamondsen describes it, “[We] willnot be able to stop contracting, so the best we can do is to organizethe industry” (Samuel 2000).

Pursue partnerships where possible. Although less prominent than in themid-1990s, labor-management cooperation still receives attention andsupport from public-sector unions. In the federal government, part-

Page 17: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

Hurd

22 WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003

nership arrangements have largely disappeared, but at the state andlocal level, there are numerous examples of collaborative relations,especially where union density is high. The greatest interest in part-nership is evident in units of professionals, especially in the field ofeducation. The entire strategic approach of the National Education As-sociation (NEA) focuses on excellence in public education, and labor-management cooperation is viewed as essential in the campaign toimprove quality. NEA president Bob Chase explains the connection:“From a unionist’s perspective, better educational quality means moresecure jobs for our members. For better quality we need collaborativerelations with management where possible. . . . We are also movingtowards more interest-based rather than confrontational bargaining.”

Support labor movement revitalization. Public-sector unions cannotact in isolation. A stronger labor movement increases the ability toinfluence policy and budgetary decisions at all levels of government.As American Federation of Teachers (AFT) organizing director PhilKugler assesses the situation, “Teachers got collective bargaining be-cause of strong private-sector unions; with those unions weakened, itaffects . . . the legislative framework.” Stronger unions in the privateeconomy also have a direct impact on labor markets. As one unionofficial observes, “You can’t maintain standards in the public sectorif the private sector is unorganized and low wage.” This combinationof economic and political factors has persuaded leaders of public-sector unions that they should look beyond their own organizationsand do what they can to influence and support movement-wide revi-talization. However, approximately 40 percent of public-sector unionmembers do not belong to AFL-CIO affiliates. Although leaders of theindependent unions recognize the value of stronger unions generally,they are removed from formal, coordinated revitalization efforts.

From Conception to Execution

There is a broad agreement on the strategic priorities for public-sec-tor unions. The reality is, though, that the national unions operate

Page 18: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

In Defense of Public Service

WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003 23

independently with limited formal coordination. Although theircourses of action may be parallel, each union operates in its own bestinterest and within the confines of its particular culture and internalpolitical considerations. Clearly there will continue to be cases whereunions compete vigorously with each other, particularly in the orga-nizing arena. Even in the political realm, it will not always be easy toreach consensus on legislative priorities, budgetary proposals, andelectoral endorsements.

The norm of autonomous union action constrains potential, aswas demonstrated in 2001 when an opportunity for a major politi-cal victory was missed. A historic bill that would have extendedbargaining rights to all of the nation’s public safety workers camebefore the Senate in early November, just eight weeks after the ter-rorist attacks. It had already been approved in the more conserva-tive House and seemed assured of passage in light of the elevatedstatus of police and firefighters nationally. A last-minute rally byconservative Republicans succeeded in draining support, and amotion to end debate failed by four votes (in other words, the Sen-ate favored the proposal 56–44). A high-ranking officer of a unionwith an active state employees division attributed the failure to labor’slack of political cohesion: “It is interesting that the AFL-CIO did notrally behind the national public safety bargaining bill, which had areal chance to move post–September 11. Firefighters did a great job ofpushing this but the rest of us did not help enough.” The lesson isthat although public-sector unions share strategic commitment, thisdoes not necessarily translate into aggressive mutual support.

Even within national unions, it will not be easy to achieve strategicobjectives. Most public-sector unions are decentralized, with the lo-cus of control over resources and programs residing at the state ormetropolitan level. A national union’s commitment to a clearly ar-ticulated agenda may be compromised in the field if state and localaffiliates do not alter practice accordingly. As Jim Schmitz of AFSCMEsummarizes his union’s experience, “We have a long way to go withorganizational change; . . . we bump up against huge contradictions.”In states with high union density, there is little interest in dramatic

Page 19: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

Hurd

24 WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003

reorientation, and virtually no incentive to devote attention or re-sources to organizing and political action in other states. The defen-sive environment surrounding budget deficits and the expandinginfluence of the Republican right increases concern for self-interestand further reduces the potential for cohesive action nationwide.

The internal structural impediments and the threats posed by theexternal environment will limit progress on plans for a smooth meta-morphosis in union strategy and practice. These cautions notwith-standing, because they are starting from a position of relative strengthand have adopted a strategic perspective that makes sense in the con-text of the challenges that they face, major public-sector unions arewell positioned to weather the difficulties. It does seem likely thatboth union density and the government share of total employmentwill erode slowly, with absolute loss of union jobs in those stateswhere the Republican right holds sway, and in the civilian federalservice. However, with the decentralized legal framework and thematching union structure, there are significant pockets of health thatpromise to be quite durable. In addition to maintaining overallstrength in high-density states, it seems apparent that public safetyand education unions should fare well. With a firm foundation andnational commitment to organizing and intensified political action,public-sector unions are positioned to persevere until the politicaltide shifts and the attack on bargaining rights and the legitimacy ofgovernment comes to an end.

Note

1. Selected quotations from interviews with international union officials andexcerpts from internal union documents are included in the text of this and subse-quent sections. They form almost the entire basis for the section on contemporaryunion strategy. Contact the author for a copy of the interview schedule, a list ofinterviewees with dates, and a compendium of union documents.

ReferencesAversa, Jeannine. 2002. “Bush Forms Commission for Reviewing Postal Service Vi-

ability.” Associated Press, December 12.

Page 20: In Defense of Public Service : Union Strategy in Transition

In Defense of Public Service

WorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingWorkingUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA—Summer 2003 25

Belman, Dale; Morley Gunderson; and Douglas Hyatt. 1996. Public Sector Employ-ment in a Time of Transition. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Asso-ciation.

Casse, Daniel. 2003. “An Emerging Republican Majority?” Comment 115 (January):17–22.

Ehrenhalt, Alan. 1984. Politics in America. Washington, DC: Congressional Quar-terly.

Feldman, Linda, and Liz Marlantes. 2002. “Deepest State Deficits in 50 Years.” Chris-tian Science Monitor, December 27, p. 1.

Florio, James J., and Jerry Abramson. 1996. Working Together for Public Service. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Freeman, Richard B. 1986. “Unionism Comes to the Public Sector.” Journal of Eco-nomic Literature 24, no. 1 (March): 41–86.

———. 1996. “Through Public Sector Eyes: Employee Attitudes Toward Public SectorLabor Relations in the U.S.” In Public Sector Employment, ed. Dale Belman, MorleyGunderson, and Douglas Hyatt, pp. 59–84. Madison, WI: Industrial RelationsResearch Association.

Gifford, Courtney D. 1984. Directory of U.S. Labor Organizations. 1984–85 edition.Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.

———. 2002. Directory of U.S. Labor Organizations. 2002 edition. Washington, DC:Bureau of National Affairs.

Hirsch, Barry T., and David A. Macpherson. 2002. Union Membership and EarningsData Book. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.

Hurd, Richard. 1998. “Contesting the Dinosaur Image: The Labor Movement’s Searchfor a Future.” Labor Studies Journal 22, no. 4: 5–30.

Kennedy, John. 2003. “A Mission Renewed.” Orlando Sentinel, January 8, p. A1.Samuel, Leah. 2000. “Postal Workers Fight Privatization with Private Sector Orga-

nizing.” Labor Notes, no. 255 (June): 1, 11.Stern, James L. 1988, “Unionism in the Public Sector.” In Public Sector Bargaining,

ed. Benjamin Aaron, Joyce M. Najita, and James L. Stern, 2d ed., pp. 52–89.Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.

Stevenson, Richard. 2002. “The Incredible Shrinking Government, Bush Style.”New York Times, December 8, p. 4.

Troy, Leo. 1994. The New Unionism in the New Society. Fairfax, VA: George MasonUniversity Press.

To order reprints, call 1-800-352-2210; outside the United States, call 717-632-3535.