English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The vexing problem of strikes by public employees has generated a number of assertions based largely on logical analysis. One common theme is that strikes fulfill a useful function in the private sector, but are inappropriate in the public sector, because they distort the political decision-making process. Another is that strikes in nonessential government services should not be permitted because it is administratively infeasible to distinguish among the various government services on the basis of their essentiality. The present article attempts to evaluate these assertions in terms of labor relations experience at the local level of government. The assertions concerning strikes by public employees which we shall discuss have been drawn mainly from The Taylor Report, a report on public employee labor relations submitted to the Governor of New York State,' and "The Limits of Collective Bargaining in Public Employment," a recent article by Harry Wellington and Ralph Winter.2 Most of the evidence used to evaluate these assertions has been gathered in connection with the Brookings Institution Study of Unionism and

The Role and Consequences of Strikes by Public Employees