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 |
|
|
Illinois |
All public employees |
|
|
Louisiana |
All public employees |
|
|
Minnesota |
All public employees |
|
|
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
July 10
Brigham and Women’s Hospital locks out 4,000 nurses after one-day strike; appeal filed challenging agency-shop agreements.
July 9
The Second Circuit declines to vacate an arbitration award over a nursing union dispute; federal workers sue the Department of Defense for termination of union contracts; New York City announces settlement with companies for violating New York work laws.
July 8
DOL plans to make changes to the PERM immigration program; three-day hearing on proposed forced-labor tariffs is underway; Mamdani recovers $2.3M in corporate settlements.
July 7
Former EEOC Commissioner drops her wrongful termination lawsuit following the Supreme Court’s ruling on Presidential removal power; unions sue Department of Defense over cancellation of collective bargaining agreements.
July 6
NY home health worker class action settlement secures preliminary approval; the NLRB upholds order finding Amazon violated federal labor law.
July 3
Unions seek a preliminary injunction to prevent USDA downsizing; the D.C. District Court issues a preliminary injunction against new student loan regulations; Matt Bruenig releases an analysis of Starbucks’ ongoing legal battle against Starbucks Workers United.