Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector essay

Generally the nature of services offered in public companies is not of the expected standards as compared to private companies. This is because the employees in public companies are not well motivated and close monitoring of the employees to give quality work cannot be closely checked. This is because of centralized management under which the public organizations exist. In most of cases there is delay of service delivered to the customers. Unlike in private sectors, long procedures to follow when ordering for the service or goods from public sector also contributes the delays and poor quality of the service offered.
Employees in public organization most of the time lacks enthusiasm when they are on duty. In private sector the nature of service provided is of high quality. This is being partly contributed due to decentralization nature of most private companies.In terms of collective bargaining, the employees in the public sector are covered by comprehensive and centralized collective bargaining unlike in private sector where each case is taken as it arises. In public organization the bargaining is between powerful employer and labour federations who have set basic framework of wages and working conditions throughout the economy.
In the private company the locus of bargaining has shifted from the central to the sectoral and enterprises levers in which case the sectoral framework agreement set the basic minimum conditions. Building on theoretical argument of Keith Sission and Clegg, the employers in public organization sets wages generally based on response to unions activity. These help private companies to achieve their main goals of regurised, centralised bargaining and management. Control of workplace has also established a framework in which unions now recognized and organizationally secure have achieved steady gains in pay, working conditions influence.

Right to strike
The right to strike of central government employees, and especially career civil servants, is subject to restrictions in several countries. In a number of cases this right is simply forbidden, in others is subject to some special regulations, while in a third group of countries it is similar to that for private sector employees, with a few qualifications. Apart from the armed forces, defence, police and the judiciary, which are often excluded from the right to strike, severe restrictions? In a labor-management mediator is gratifying. Arbitrators make critical difference, heading off potentially disruptive strikes and other community-rending disputes.
Many of the disputes which are of great interest to the press are hidden so that to avoid negative publicity.  In news articles they are usually referred to as the anonymous “state mediator.” Due to the nature of collective bargaining, the two sides to the agreement bear the responsibility for the success or failure of their negotiation. They are in the limelight; mediators are properly left in the deep background. Nevertheless, most labor-management mediators have been tempted from time to time to tell reporters what is really going on in the negotiations.
However, succumbing to this temptation would violate ethics of confidentiality. Moreover, it would make the goal of reaching a settlement more difficult. Labor-management mediators do complex, alleging work. They are often thrust into the middle of badly deteriorated relationships where trust is virtually nonexistent.
But unlike a marital dispute, in which separation is a possibility, walking away from each other is not an option for unions and employers. With few exceptions, there are no divorces in labor-management relations. Mediators need patience and the ability to remain calm in the midst of the resulting storms. Often, the mediator becomes the lightning rod for parties who are angry with each other.
Reference:

Morris A. Horowitz. New york: Collective Bargaining in the Public sector. Lxitonton Books.
Fisher and Ury: Collective Bargaining.