OnLabor

Law. Workers. Organizing.

Editorials

Overview: How Different States Respond to Public Sector Labor Unrest

Kirsten Bass

Recently, public sector transit workers have been in the spotlight, receiving a significant amount of media attention as a result of strikes that effectively halted transportation in the city of San Francisco. This labor strife reignited a dialogue nationwide about whether public sector workers should be allowed to strike. Many states’ laws are silent on the issue of public sector strikes; the states that have addressed the issue deploy divergent and inconsistent resolution mechanisms.

Below is a chart detailing the rights that the 12 permissive strike states have extended to their public sector employees:

State

Employees Covered

Policy

 

 

 

Alaska

All public employees

 

California

Some municipal employees

Colorado

All public employees

 

 

 

 

Hawaii

All public employees
  • Strikes are permitted 60 days after the issuance of a fact-finding report and exhaustion of impasse resolution procedures
  • The union is required to give 10 days notice
  • Strikes by firefighters and other essential employees are illegal
  • Strikes that endanger public health and safety are illegal
  • Click here to be redirected to the Hawaii Public Employment Relations Act

 

 

Illinois

All public employees

Louisiana

All public employees

 

 

 

 

 

Minnesota

All public employees
  • Strikes are prohibited unless the employer has refused a request for binding arbitration or refuses to submit to an arbitration award
  • Teachers have the right to strike following expiration of contract, 60 days of mediation, and 10 days’ notice
  • Non-teaching local and state employees may strike after expiration of contract, 45 days mediation, and 10 days’ notice
  • No strikes by essential employees are allowed
  • Click here to be redirected to the Public Employment Labor Relations Act

 

 

Montana

Public health nurses

 

Ohio

All public employees

 

Oregon

All public employees

 

 

Pennsylvania

All public employee except prison guards, police, firefighters, and court employees

 

 

 

 

Vermont

Municipal employees

Adapted from Labor Relations in the Public Sector, Fifth Edition by Richard C. Kearney & Patrice M. Mareschal

One commonality among permissive strike states is that the vast majority bar strikes that would endanger public health, safety or welfare. For that reason, police and firefighters are prohibited from striking in almost every state. This prohibition dates back to 1919, when a massive police strike in Boston left citizens in an incredibly vulnerable state.

The 38 states not on the permissive strike list either do not recognize a legal right to strike or have an outright prohibition against public sector strikes. Similar to the permissive strike states, the penalties associated with prohibited strikes vary widely. How effective the lack of a legal right is as a deterrent to striking has been called into question numerous times, with the 2005 NYC MTA strike being a good example. New York provides for the most draconian anti-strike penalties, enacted in the Taylor Law. The penalties for a public sector union strike can include: large monetary fines levied against the union for every day its members are on strike, the loss of dues check off privileges for 18 months after striking, and potential jail time for the union leader. Knowing this, the union leaders still called a strike. On the opposite end of the spectrum are the more recent San Francisco BART strikes. Because the strikes were permitted under California law, the city had little recourse, despite the inconvenience to city residents. In both of these strikes, an agreement was eventually reached.

Daily News & Commentary

Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all

OnLabor In The News

Browse all

More From OnLabor

See more

Ruelas v. County of Alameda — California Pretrial Detainees Denied Minimum Wage for Corporate Labor (Part 3)

In Ruelas v. County of Alameda, the Supreme Court of California denied pretrial detainees’ state minimum wage claim, reasoning that section 4019.3 of the state’s Penal Code — capping jail laborers’ wages at two dollars per day — instead governed.  The first part of this three-part series discussed the California Supreme Court’s holding and reasoning.  The second part gave a history of California’s constitution and jail labor in the state, concluding that the two-dollar daily wage cap could not have applied to plaintiffs, who were pretrial detainees performing unpaid labor for a corporation.  

Ruelas v. County of Alameda — California Pretrial Detainees Denied Minimum Wage for Corporate Labor (Part 2)

In Ruelas v. County of Alameda, the Supreme Court of California held that pretrial detainees forced to labor for a corporation are ineligible for a minimum wage under the state’s Labor Code.  The court construed Penal Code section 4019.3 broadly, interpreting it as incompatible with California’s Labor Code. The court concluded that the Penal Code prevents pretrial detainees from earning more than two dollars per day for their labor, absent a local ordinance.  

How Three Simple Labor Laws Helped Unions Organize Amazon and UBER in Canada

In early July,  the British Columbia Labour Relations Board (BCLRB) certified UFCW-Canada as the bargaining representative for over 500 UBER drivers in the province’s capital city of Victoria.  A few days later, the BCLRB issued another decision that certified the union Unifor (formerly the Canadian Auto Workers) for a bargaining unit of hundreds of employees employed at an Amazon distribution centre […]

Ruelas v. County of Alameda — California Pretrial Detainees Denied Minimum Wage for Corporate Labor (Part 1)

Pretrial detainees in Santa Rita Jail are forced to labor for Aramark, a food-preparation company that provides meals to third parties outside of the jail. Neither Aramark nor the county pays detainees for their labor.  In 1990, California amended its constitution to allow companies to contract with prisons — facilities run by the state or federal government that detain convicted offenders — for labor, so long as prisoners were paid comparable wages to non-inmate laborers.  

Enjoy OnLabor’s fresh takes on the day’s labor news, right in your inbox.

Sections

Connect