Answering research questions: a systematic approach

Collective Bargain

Some of the differences found in state governments and how they treat their employees can be discerned by how many or how few collective bargaining rights those employees are afforded. For example, West Virginia allows their employees the right to join unions and have exclusive bargaining while Arizona and Arkansas; while allowing employees the right to join unions, do not offer exclusive bargaining. Although these three states do not offer collective bargaining policies per se, they differ from other states that are in the same category by offering their employees the right to join unions and have the unions bargain for them. Some states, such as Virginia and North Carolina, have passed laws against public employees joining unions at all.

Those states that do not allow for collective bargaining are oftentimes able to accomplish the goals and objectives of collective bargaining by offering local governments the right to negotiate with certain groups per policy. The text shows that in states such as Arizona, "a considerable amount of negotiating does transpire" (p. 67) and that "labor relations policies in these states may be established by local ordinance or on an ad hoc basis by majors, city managers, department heads or school boards" (p. 67).

Those states that do allow for collective bargaining (which are the majority of the states) are oftentimes found to be the same states that are currently having difficulty in meeting their financial obligations. This scenario is not abnormal at all, and in fact is very commonplace. The problem is that states that allow for comprehensive collective bargaining are often the same states with leaders that have come from the union ranks, and hence have a vested interest in acquiescing to labor demands.

Differences between states will oftentimes determine the relative financial stability of those states. Some of the differences between the states include both comprehensive and non-comprehensive realities. A non-comprehensive state may offer collective bargaining but not in its usual form. Instead the state(s) may allow for 'meet and confer' activities while explicitly denying the right for "transferring private sector bargaining rights to public employees" (p. 68). States that allow for comprehensive collective bargaining differ from the non-comprehensive states by allowing total representation by the unions for public employees.

As an example; Florida changed its state constitution in order to afford "the state's government workers the same right to engage in collective bargaining as Florida's private sector employees" (p. 70). One could argue, however, that even in Florida the term 'comprehensive' still leaves wiggle room, since public employees are still prohibited from going on strike.