Employee-Management Relations in the New York State Public Sector

Ken Meyer Business Officer Kings Park Psychiatric Center Kings Park, New York

In August 1970, Morris L. Myers wrote, "Much of hospital management still believes that professional employees should not be represented by an organization for the purpose of collective bargaining." Despite this, he said, "union representation and bargaining...is going to increase."1 Myers ended his article by saying that "although hospitals now have an opportunity to exercise leadership (to prevent such representation), time is running out on that opportunity." 2

That was written more than seven years ago. This author believes that time has indeed run out. As in many states throughout the nation, employee-management relations in the public sector of New York State have seen drastic changes in recent years. New York State employees, through their bargaining units, are demanding and getting a far stronger voice. 3 Collective bargaining has necessitated some basic rethinking of the entire management function; manage- ment's right to manage as it sees fit is no longer absolute, especially in such areas as discipline, work assignments, and work standards. More recently, the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA), the representative body for all New York State workers except security personnel, has turned its attention to the Civil Service Commission and has begun to monitor closely its decisions and practices.4

If it is to remain viable, management is going to have to realize that unionism in the public sector is here to stay and adjust to such changes. To do so, management will have to recognize the nature and implications of the events that rest behind the changes.

There are those who believe that the private sector, due to its great experience and success in adjusting to the collective bargaining system, has all the answers for the public sector. This author believes that, although quite a bit may be learned from a study of that experience, one must first recognize the fundamental differ- ences between the two sectors.5

Differences Between Private and Public Sectors First, public services in the health care field are nearly always

monopolistic. This is certainly true in the New York Department of Mental Hygiene (DMH) because traditionally there hasn't been an

40

alternate supplier of care to the mentally ill, mentally retarded, or emotionally disturbed. It is this very tradition that puts severe pressure on the department to see to it that service is not interrupted. Thus, unlike a private sector corporation, the DMH must consider a strike unthinkable.

The health and safety aspects, coupled with the DMH's inability to get services elsewhere, led to the passage in New York of the Taylor Law (1967), which contains no-strike provisions. Under this law, "all strikes, which include absences from work, slow-downs, sit-ins, refusals to perform required work, or other forms of job actions, are illegal and two days pay can be docked for each day, or part thereof, of any public employee on strike."6

However, law alone has not been enough. In 1969, there was a wildcat strike by state workers at Creedmoor Psychiatric Center, Queens Village, New York, over the issues of working conditions and salaries. Since that time, each contract negotiation session has resulted in "brinksmanship," as the state's refusal to honor CSEA's demands is countered by a threat of job action. 7 Thus, the new fiscal year starting date (April 1) assumes undue importance as a potential crisis date. As a result of a statewide job action in 1973, the penalties of the Taylor Law were implemented and participating state workers were fined. In addition, the union lost its privilege to have union dues deducted directly from members' paychecks for a one-year period. Thus, the strike, legal or not, remains a potent weapon.

The general public has an interest in any negotiation, in both the public and private sectors, because the result is always higher prices or increased taxes, let alone the inconvenience brought about by work stoppages. Adding to the stresses of the situation is the close following of any negotiation by the news media. In addition, it seems that almost every week this author gets a call from a group of "concerned citizens" asking for justification concerning the facility's management practices. The resulting "goldfish bowl" climate is anything but conducive to calm bargaining during local negotiations.

There is one other difference that must be mentioned. This concerns CSEA as a political force. Obviously all labor unions, private and public, are political entities and can and do exert pressure to gain favorable legislation through the election of candidates sympathetic to their cause. Within the DMH, however, this union activity is more complex. Since the conditions of employment and benefits for which CSEA is bargaining are con- trolled by the state legislature, it becomes possible for the union to circumvent the bargaining process. Through the legislative process, it can win benefits it was unable to win at the bargaining table. This is a tremendous advantage and one which can make labor- management negotiations in the DMH a most frustrating experience.

What is CSEA demanding that is so different from other unions? When Samuel Gompers, noted union organizer and founder of the

41

American Federation of Labor, was asked, "What does labor want?" he answered in one word: "More."8 This one word sums it up succinctly. Labor has always fought hard in its efforts to increase its portion of the economic benefits of the social structure, and CSEA is no different from others in this respect. Basically, this author's experience with CSEA has shown that it is after higher wages and increased benefits. But along with these demands have come demands concerning greater security for union members and for the union itself.

This concern may be seen as something of an anomaly to those familiar with civil service systems. The attraction of such systems for a long time has been a high degree of security through formalized processes to select, retain, promote, and discipline employees. Nevertheless, through CSEA, DMH employees themselves now want even more say in these matters. CSEA has accused the Civil Service Commission of being overly management-oriented. Most recently, this author has been involved in a case where a non-tenured provisional employee without civil service status, who was fired for insubordination, is testing in court whether a provisional can be fired without the right to have union representation up to and including a hearing before an impartial arbitrator.

Throughout the DMH, state employees continue to press for even more grievance procedures to handle continuing disputes over contract interpretation and discipline problems. Other objectives being sought are added attention to internal promotions, with seniority instead of competitive examination as the determining factor; contractually spelled-out procedures in the event of lay-offs, again with the emphasis on seniority; security measures for the union ranging all the way to an agency shop; and higher pay when performing out-of-title work. In fact, current CSEA demands have resulted in civil service exams being postponed until job audits could be conducted to insure that the exams are based upon the actual tasks to be performed.

A recent issue of the Civil Service Leader, America's largest newspaper for public employees, carried the banner headline "Current Employees Survive Onslaught of Pension Reform."9 In effect, this "onslaught," brought about by the New York State legislature, forces public employees coming into the retirement system after July 1, 1976, to contribute toward the cost of their retirement! All that is requested is that these new employees contribute 3 percent of their annual salary toward the pension, with the state (and the taxpayer) contributing the still overwhelming share of 97 percent. This author considers this inequitable from a management viewpoint: 97 percent is still far too large a share for the state to bear without suffering vital cutbacks in other areas. Nevertheless, a spokesman for the CSEA described the pension reform as "a bitter pill for all public employees to swallow."10

42

Whatever Happened to Management's Rights? All of the above was, at one time, solely in the realm of

management. One wonders, then, what prerogatives are left to management; indeed, is there such a thing as management's rights? Certainly, management is supposed to be able to run its affairs and in so doing it must have the wherewithal to decide what is to be done, when it is to be done, and by whom it is to be done. At the very least, management must have the right to determine the mission, purposes, objectives, and policies of the organization; to determine the facilities, methods, means, and number of personnel required to conduct its programs; to direct, deploy, and utilize the work force; and to discipline or discharge employees in accordance with the law and the provisions of contract agreements. 11

No right, of course, is absolute, and to declare by fiat that something is exclusively reserved to management is only asking for trouble (remember the result of the divine right of kings?) However, this does not mean that management should abdicate its responsi- bilities and consult with the union on every decision. Management rights do exist and they must be protected. But part of the difficulty is the very fact that these rights are not easily defined. Everyone seems to have a differing perspective of what they are, and inevitably the differences are marked between labor's and manage- meat's views.

Today, more and more matters formerly acknowledged to be solely in the management purview are discussed across the bargain- ing table--a trend that in all probability will continue. Since labor laws in New York specify that hours, wages, and working conditions are subject to collective bargaining, it is not difficult to see that the words "working conditions" can be and are interpreted to mean a variety of things. How far CSEA will go in broadening its definitions will rest to a great extent on the ability of management to check it.

Advice to Managers: Develop a "Bias" Just because there are more issues now reaching the bargaining

table which were at one time considered exclusive management rights does not indicate that management has abdicated its role. Instead, it indicates a national need--the need for competent, knowledgeable individuals who are very "with it" about the details of the labor contract and about the best way to administer it.

For this reason, the following guidelines are presented which have proven most useful to this author in dealing with labor unions:

1. When dealing with a union, clearly identify your management role. 2. Develop a management "bias"--a strong propensity to push for what is good from your way of thinking. 3. Know what your rights are as management and reasonably exercise those rights. The best way to retain management rights

43

is to be an effective manager; the quickest way to lose them is to do a poor job. Remember that more people vote for or against their immediate supervisor in a union certification election than for or against the institution as it stands on specific practices. 12 4. Be fair in the administration of the union contract, but don't let yourself be forced into anything which is not part of the contract. 5. Be sure that your first-echelon supervisors are knowledgeable about the contract provisions. A competent job here is vital, otherwise your facility will be continually bogged down in grievances. 6. Although strikes are prohibited throughout much of the public sector, be prepared. Have an emergency plan ready and tested to insure that at least the essential services will be carried out.

Conclusion Despite what has been said above, it is safe to state that

management in the public sector is not in danger of being deposed. Both labor and management can survive; they have in the private sector and the relationship has proven mutually beneficial. But continued interaction and cooperation is needed to assure a lasting relationship, even though new challenges are inherent in it.

44

Footnotes

1. Myers, Morris L. "Professional Trade Unions." Hospitals, Journal of the American Hospital Association 44 (1970):80.

2. Ibid., p. 83.

3. Szurnicki, Gregory A., President, Civil Service Employees Associ- ation, Chapter 411. Personal interview with author, March 14, 1977.

4. Ibid.

5. Macy, John W. Public Service: The Human Side of Government. New York: Harper ~- Row, 1971, p. 214.

6. Kolb, Lawrence C., Commissioner, New York State Department of Mental Hygiene. Memorandum to facility directors, April 7, 1977, p. 4.

7. Szurnicki, op. cit.

8. Mills, Daniel Q. Labor Relations and Manpower. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972, p. 142.

9. Civil Service Leader 42 (1976):1.

10. Ibid., p. 13.

11. Agreement between the State of New York and the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., 1973-76, Article 5, p. 12.

12. Metzger, Norman. "Labor Relations and the Supervisor." Health Services Manager 9 (1976):1.

45