Labor - Management Relations 359
as such a group (Guiler & Shafritz,
2004). The doctrine of illegal separation of
powers forbids a government to share
its powers with others. It has been
used most frequently to limit the scope
of mandatory topics of bargaining.
Opponents of public sector collective
bargaining have noted a fundamental
confl ict between collective bargaining
and these doctrines because government has a responsibility to act on
behalf of all citizens, not just union members, and the public interest
should not be subjugated to the political struggles between unions and
government.
Another belief unique to public sector collective bargaining is that public
employees have no right to withhold services from their fellow citizens.
For many public sector jobs, such as police and fi refi ghting, no competi-
tive market exists. Machines cannot provide those services, and consumers
cannot turn to other suppliers of the service.
Public sector contract negotiations tend to be more diffi cult due to
the diffusion of authority that exists in the public sector. The executive
branch of government is responsible for the day - to - day administration of
public organizations and contract negotiations. It is the legislative branch
that has responsibility for the budget and the fi nal authority to legitimize a
settlement. Because members of public unions are also voters, they often
attempt to infl uence the collective bargaining process by lobbying the
people who are dependent on them for reelection.
For these ideological and structural reasons and because many people
did not see the need for unionization, the legal framework for public
sector collective bargaining lagged behind that of the private sector.
Job protection was granted to public employees through civil service
systems. Selection, retention, and promotion were based on merit quali-
fi cations. Over the years, civil service systems expanded to include job
classifi cation, salary administration, and the administration of grievance
procedures, training, and safety. Public sector employees had protec-
tions usually not found in the private sector. The impetus for change
surfaced when proponents for bargaining contended that civil service
systems were often infl exible: they were unable or unwilling to respond
to demands for wage and fringe benefi t adjustments and changes in
working conditions that typically required legislative adjustment (Kearney &
Carnevale, 2001).
Public sector collective
bargaining has been
infl uenced by underlying
beliefs and organizational
structures not found in the
private sector.