Collective Bargaining and Pay Inequity in the Public Sector (Research Paper Sample)

Name
Tutor
Course
Date
Issue Paper: Collective Bargaining and Pay Inequity in the Public Sector
Wage and salary issues are crucial in industrial relations because payment of labor is one of defining aspects of the employment relationship. Further, wage and salary issues are the most conspicuous among employee’s collective concerns, indicating that payment of labor constitutes an important area in collective bargaining (Pillinger 1). Pay inequity in the public sector remains an area of great concern even in the unfolding 21st century, as evident in gender and minority inequality in compensation (Antonczyk, Fitzenberger, and Sommerfeld 1-2). Reviewing expert evidence reveals that the fate of pay equity lies in the prospects of collective bargaining, which translates to a heightened need for concerted collective bargaining efforts and employee unionism to deal with the problem of wage and salaries inequalities decisively (Dorning). As a result, public administrators should support unionism and help remove restrictions that limit public service collective bargaining as a way of addressing pay inequity.
Unionization and Pay Inequity
Addressing income inequities among employees is one of the many goals of collective bargaining. In a Department for Professional Employees report, Dorning argues that unions allowing collective bargaining are a crucial tool in countering gender and minority inequities in wages and salaries. The scholar notes disparities in gender and minority communities’ representation in collective bargaining. In this case, only 11.1% of female workers, 13.4% of African American workers, and 10% of Hispanic workers, 10.9% of Asian workers were unionized as of 2010. However, the proportion taking part in collective bargaining fairs better in wages and salaries equality than their nonunionized counterparts. For instance, Dorning cites 2010 statistics indicating that unionized females earned $217 extra per week (25.3%) more than nonunionized female workers did, indicating that collective bargaining helped their case. Further, African American, Asian, and Hispanic minority communities earned 23.7%, 7.4%, and 33.6% extra per week respectively when compared to their nonunionized counterparts.
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms Dorning’s observations through recent statistics, establishing the remuneration comparisons between unionized and nonunionized employees in 2012 and 2013. The Bureau’s 2014 economic news release indicates that the median weekly earnings of female employees represented by unions was $865 compared to $663 for nonunionized female employees in 2012, and $893 versus $676 in 2013, respectively. The difference was even bigger for minority communities, with unionized African Americans earning $784 compared to $559 for their nonunionized counterparts in 2012 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics). The same pattern was consistent for Hispanics and Asians in both 2012 and 2013. These observations indicate that collective bargaining is useful in correcting pay inequity in today’s workplaces.
The Equalizing Effect of Collective Bargaining
The rationale behind the aforementioned statistics and observations arises from the equalizing effect of collective bargaining on employee compensation, which remains true whether in the public or private sector. Brown, Marginson, and Walsh (33) describe the “sword of justice” effect of trade unions, indicating that unionization tends to encompass lower-waged employees within the scope of collective bargaining. Given that parties such as female employees and minorities are commonly among the low-waged, such an effect of collective bargaining ends up reversing pay inequity. Further, collective bargaining tends to tie pay rates to jobs rather than performance criteria or individual productivity. The net result is that the wages and salaries of unionized employees are less dispersed compared to those of nonunionized employees, indicating that collective bargaining has an equalizing effect on earning distribution.
According to Pillinger (4-5), public sector trade unions have accumulated enormous experience in agitating for equal pay, especially in developed countries. For instance, unending gender pay gaps in the public sector have inspired employee unions to reassess their pay equity strategies and seek more proactive strategies. Such strategies explain why collective bargaining has contributed to more equitable pay. For instance, Pillinger (4) notes that public service collective bargaining not only promotes pay equity through campaigns, but also has wide experience in taking cases of inequity through courts. Public service trade unions have also contributed to the establishment of performance evaluation techniques that are free from bias and discrimination that would have resulted in inequitable compensation for some parties or individuals. Further, these unions are always developing new strategies through which to mainstream pay inequity into collective bargaining, which means that pay equity grows alongside unionism (5).
Blackett and Sheppard (28-34) also explore how collective bargaining remedies inequality and discrimination in wages and salaries in the modern workplace, noting that unions apply anti-discrimination clauses and proactive or affirmative action clauses in collective agreements. One of the areas in which collective agreement clauses tackle anti-discrimination is in terms of wages and salaries, where collective bargaining may have a strong focus in ensuring that pay inequity does not arise in workplaces. Collective agreements may have clauses dictating against discrimination in compensation. Whereas the aforementioned antidiscrimination clauses’ route to pay equity tends towards retroactive redress to wage discrimination, collective agreements also pursue proactive measures that promote pay equity. Here, Blackett and Sheppard (31) indicate that collective agreements focus on proactive policies meant to identify and eradicate systemic inequalities in workplaces, one of which is wages and salaries. Such proactive employment equity and affirmative action moves contained in collective bargaining crucially occur in tandem with legislative reforms, which are of crucial importance in the public sector.
Implications for Public Sector Collective Bargaining
Whereas the previous sections underpin the view that collective bargaining is crucial in the bid to end public sector pay inequity, there is an emerging trend in which public sector collective bargaining is facing opposition. According to Slater (1), recent times have seen salient and widespread attacks on public sector collective bargaining, which does not bode well for the question of wages and salaries discrimination in the sector. Whereas the private sector continues to develop strong employee collective action, unionization has been under attack in states such as Ohio and Wisconsin while other states also have such anti-collective bargaining inclinations underway.
Political developments and public administration attitudes are among some of the reasons behind the detractions against public sector collective bargaining. Although long considered an example of labor law success, collective bargaining is now a tool through which the two political parties engage in competition and squabbles. For instance, Slater (1-2) notes that Republican-inclining states were quick to rescind state workers’ collective power or criticize it after the previous elections, arguing that public employees were becoming a privileged class. Another perspective of attacks on public service collective bargaining arises from the view that public employees did not suffer the same consequences of the 2008 economic depression as their private sector counterparts. As a result, critics and detractors view collective bargaining as unnecessary in the public sector.
The 2008 economic decline also brings another public administration perspective upon which public sector collective power is criticized. In this case, some parties feel that collective bargaining through public employee unions has led to heightened pay and benefits, which have contributed to the fiscal crises affecting state and local governments since 2008 (Lewin et al. 2-3). Further, public sector collective bargaining for wages appears undesirable because the sector does not make m...