August 31, 1977

Civil Service Could Curb Public Strikes

In a way, we should be grateful to Dayton firemen for making us fully aware of the public employee collective bargaining controversy.

It is against Ohio law for firemen, police, teachers and other tax-supported workers to strike.  For many years now, public employees have thumbed their nose at the law refusing to work until their group demands were met.

Strike psychology has become so ingrained in American society that we have winked at defiance of the anti-strike law and dealt with striking public employees as we would private sector workers.

We reached the logical conclusion of this hypocrisy in Dayton where striking firemen drove to blazes then stood by while 23 homes burned to ashes.  After a week of this madness the city surrendered and gave the firemen all they had demanded.  There is no doubt that there will be new and larger demands in a short next time.

American cities are hostage to service personnel we once quaintly called "public servants."  Today, trash collectors can bring a large city to its knees in a matter of days and make it willing - even anxious - to pay any ransom.  San Francisco trash men, for example, now make more than $17,000 a year; and college professors are liberally sprinkled in the waiting list for city jobs.

If you believe in the so-called "private enterprise system" of competition responding freely to the dynamics of supply and demand, then public employees should have the right to bargain their labor, even as you and I.

The conclusive weapon of an employee is resignation, while that of an employer is replacement.  Strikes are union ultimatums, and final offers are management ultimatums.  These are elemental and balancing forces.  Society gets into difficulty when it attempts to control the process for what is perceived a greater public good.

The Ohio Assembly has attempted to reconcile the conflicting forces with a proposed new law now designated Senate Bill 222.  Realistically it recognizes the right of public employees to strike.  Unrealistically it attempts to protect the public from pervasive labor monopoly with "binding arbitration."

It can't be done!

The aims are self cancelling.

Strikes and final offers are ultimatums preparatory to possible disaster for one side or the other.  Binding arbitration removes threats and reduces "bargaining" to "forced settlement."  Tigers without teeth are pussy cats.

Despite all the philosophy of collective bargaining, it is dangerous anarchy for society to allow shelters to be destroyed or peaceful citizens to be victimized by criminals.

What mechanism, then, can we devise that will protect the rights both of the individual and society with the least amount of restraint on either?

Experience of the 34 states that have public employee collective bargaining coupled with binding arbitration proves one thing - such coupling is not the answer.  Where the contradictory arrangement has been tried, strikes have increased and costs have skyrocketed.  Bankruptcy by big cities has been hastened in many cases.

Ohio legislators, who rammed through S B 222 on a party line basis, simply to satisfy the big public employee unions, have been sobered by the Dayton experience.  The bill now is in "conference committee" for amendment prior to final vote.  The solons are afraid to turn out the bill with binding arbitration, but have been unable to find an alternative.

There are some viable compromises that merit consideration.

First, let us give unrestricted collective bargaining rights to both public employees and public administrators with only two exceptions - police and firemen.  Let teachers, and trash collectors and bus drivers exercise the power of strike and suffer any possible consequences of over ambition.

Yes, the public may be seriously inconvenienced - but not endangered.  In a long strike we can delay our children's education, take our trash to a central collection station and car-pool our transportation needs.

Police and firemen are special, however, and there is no getting around it.  They require both technical training and courage.  Their services can not be curtailed for a moment.  We must be prepared to pay them extra well, and they must accept third party settlement.

There already exists machinery for protection of all municipal employees - Civil Service.  Local boards, comprised of citizens living in the community, have long supervised work standards and grievances.  On the whole, Civil Service Boards, have successfully settled employee-administration disputes for many decades.

Arbitration boards with binding authority, as now provided in SB 222 would bring in outsiders to impose settlements the taxpayers might be unable or unwilling to bear.

Local Civil Service Boards, with addition of a safety employee member, could determine settlements that take into consideration the rights of the public as well as the disputants.

Author: Lindsey Williams