Argues that exclusive representation reduces public employees' freedom of choice, increases the welfare of union leaders at the expense of union members, limits employment opportunities of "outsiders," entrenches the monopoly provision of public services, and generates conflict and instability in labor relations. (Author/MLF)

Provides a brief history of the Pennsylvania Public Employee Relations Act, examining both its antecedents and the studies made of it after it was in operation for some years. (IRT)

Introduces the special section of this issue on the Public Employee Relations Act (Act 195) in Pennsylvania. (IRT)

Repeal of the Hatch Act would worsen inflation and make effective controls over government much more difficult to achieve. Repeal of the Hatch Act would serve the interests of no one except those who seek to gain increasing political power at the expense of the general public. (Author/IRT)

Act 195 has been responsible for approximately $458 million in tangible costs since its passage in 1970 and perhaps as much in intangible costs. Despite this, teachers in Pennsylvania hold no significant edge over other teachers across the nation. (Author/IRT)

In "Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority" (1985), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Tenth Amendment does not preclude application of the federal minimum wage act and the Fair Labor Standards Act to state and local government employees. This paper explains "Garcia" history and implications for…

Historical evidence is presented for the thesis that exclusive union representation by majority rule was adopted in the private sector primarily to pave the way for a corporative state. Peaceful, orderly collective bargaining by "responsible" unions in a competitive economy was a minor, secondary consideration. (Author/MLF)

Outlines the continuing conflict over the definition of the scope of bargaining in Act 195 and provides brief accounts of 10 significant court decisions over the act that have had broad impact. (IRT)

Any legitimate theory of employment rights must be founded on the premise that employment is a voluntary relationship governed by mutual consent; an employment right does not exist apart from contract. Analyzes the legal aspects of public sector employment. (Author/MLF)

Considers rulings by more than 15 state supreme courts in which state legislation permitting public sector bargaining and arbitration was found to be constitutional. Denounces judicial approval of this legislation, arguing that the laws oppose Lockian traditions of constitutional representative government and are a threat to democracy. (PGD)

Among other things, public sector bargaining divides public authority and redistributes a share of it to private entities--mainly unions--that are not elected by or accountable to the public. It also undermines the general conditions for healthy democratic governance of society. (Author/IRT)

Examines collective bargaining statutes in 31 states and over 300 court and judicial agency decisions concerning what's negotiable, what statutes allow or forbid to be negotiated, how courts define the scope of bargaining, and the public policy implications of scope decisions. (Author/IRT)

Examines two questions: What general consequences would follow from requiring state and local governments to recognize unions of public employees and to bargain collectively with them? What particular consequences would flow from administering this system through the national government? (Author/IRT)

The author's study reveals that collective bargaining constitutes a costly example of the liberal tendency to ignore the costs of procedural rights. Those who benefit from collective bargaining and its attendant strife include state labor relations agencies, labor attorneys, fact finders, and the mass media. (Author/WD)