U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Working Together for Public Service
SOME BASIC DATA TRENDS AND ATTITUDES
IN PUBLIC SECTOR SERVICE AND EMPLOYMENT
No matter our job or age, services provided by public workers and managers assist and influence our every day life. The intent of this chapter is to provide some basic facts about the state and local public sector, such as who works there, services provided, projections of future trends in terms of employees, revenues, and expenditures, recent trends in contracting out, the extent of union representation, employee attitudes, and public opinion.
Dimensions of the Public Sector
As of 1995, there were 16.5 million employees of state and local governments in the United States, compared to 97.3 million private sector employees. These numbers are presented below in Figure 1 for both 1995 and 1985. When federal employees also are considered, total public employment as a percent of total U.S. employment has remained fairly steady at between 15 percent and 16 percent since 1980. Total public employment as a percent of total U.S. population has also remained steady during the period at approximately 7.5 percent.
Both employment and the U.S. population have been growing, however, and state and local public employment has been consistent with this growth. Figure 2 shows employment in state and local government from 1970 through 1996. Following a slight dip in local government employment in the recessionary periods of the early 1980's, both local and state employment have grown at a steady pace in recent years. Local government employment has grown at a higher rate than state employment, having increased by more than 20 percent over the last 15 years.
Since 1983, Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that the average annual rate of change of state and local government employment has been somewhat higher than the rate of population growth. Projections into the year 2005 show the rate of population growth declining, while the rate of state and local employment growth remains steady, primarily due to growing demand in education and corrections. Figure 3 indicates the magnitude of past and future growth in state and local government employment.
|
Local Government, 1995 Annual Averages |
|
seasonally adjusted, 1970-96 |
When all three components of the public sector are combined, as in Figure 4, it is apparent that the local sector accounts for the largest share, with 59 percent of all public employment. State government is the second largest, accounting for 25 percent, with the federal government running third at 16 percent.
|
Employment Growth |
|
State or Local Government (1992) |
The three sectors also are distinguished by the relative size of the different public functions in each:
Education is by far the largest component of both state and local government employment.
Health is the second largest component of state government and third largest component of local government.
Public safety is the second largest employer in local government and third largest in state government.
|
|
The federal government, by contrast, has a different employment mix with defense forming the largest employment sector, followed by postal services, with health running a distant third. These employment components of state, local and federal government are presented in Figures 5, 6 and 7.
|
|
|
|
Professional specialty occupations make up the largest part of state and local government employment, accounting for 33.6 percent of state employees and 37.2 percent of local government employees. Such occupations include teachers, registered nurses, social workers, counselors and recreation workers.
The second largest group is made up of administrative support occupations, including clerical workers. These make up 21.7 percent of state employees and 18.1 percent of local government employees in such occupations as teacher aides, secretaries, clerks, and library assistants.
|
Occupational Group |
The third largest group is composed of service occupations, such as police and corrections officers, fire fighters, janitors, cooks and nurses aides. This group accounts for 16.7 percent of state employees and 21.3 percent of local government employees.
The smallest major group of state and local government employees is composed of executive, administrative and managerial occupations, accounting for 14.3 percent of state employees and 9.3 percent of local government employees. Figure 8 displays the past, present and projected future relative size of occupational groups in state and local government.
Future Public Sector Growth
The state and local public sectors are expected to continue some growth. Although the average annual rate of change in population growth through the year 2005 is expected to equal 0.8 percent, the rate of employment growth in state and local government is expected to average 2 percent. (See previous Figure 3.) This growth in public sector employment will be largely attributed to the growth in state and local education, which is expected to grow much faster than any other component of state and local government. The "State and local other" category shown in Figure 9 below is a diverse grouping of many other components of state and local employment, including service occupations, administrative and support occupations, precision production workers, professional occupations, and executive/managerial occupations. A preliminary breakdown of this group indicates that the protective service subgroup (fire fighters, police, and correction officers) will experience the second highest average annual rate of growth into the year 2005.
|
|
State and local government purchases are expected to increase at a significantly lower average annual rate into the year 2005. When compared to the projected lower rate of increase in private demand, there will also be a relative slowing of the pull of state and local purchases on the Gross Domestic Product. These relationships are presented in Figure 10.
An important factor which may accentuate the growth of the state and local component of the overall public sector in the future may be the devolution of federal functions to state government and the state or local operation of previously national programs.
|
|
Public Sector Revenue and Expenditures
State and local taxes made up 44 percent of all non-Social Security taxes collected by all levels of government in 1992. This was an increase of 8 percent since 1981. Excluding Social Security, income taxes account for nearly 90 percent of federal public sector revenue, but only about 25 percent of state government receipts. The bulk of state and local government revenue is made up of sales, excise, and property taxes, plus user fees. Approximately one-third of state revenue and more than one-half of local revenue come from these later sources.
Another very significant source of state and local government revenue is federal grants-in- aid, which accounted for more than 18 percent of state and local budgets in 1980. Federal grants have decreased since that time, however, dropping substantially between 1980 and 1990. After bottoming in 1987, the amount of grants, in real dollar terms, leveled out and began to rise very slightly. These trends are presented in absolute dollars Figure 11.
|
(1978-94) |
The pattern of revenue from various sources differs significantly when state and local government are compared. State governments receive a smaller portion of their revenue from other governments than do local governments and rely more on sales taxes and other non-income, non-property taxes. In 1992, local governments received 33.4 percent of their revenue from other governments, while states received only 22.8 percent of their revenue from this source. State governments received 26.3 percent of their income from sales taxes, while local governments received only 6.6 percent of their revenue from this source. Local government, on the other hand, received 28.5 percent of their revenue from property and income taxes as compared to 17.9 percent received from this source by state government. These comparisons can be seen in Figures 12 and 13 for both 1992 and 1982.
|
|
State and local government revenues are very sensitive to changes in both national and regional economies. If the growth of personal income does not keep pace with needs for revenue through income or sales taxes, jurisdictions must adjust expenditures or tinker with revenue mechanisms to assure sufficient resources. Most state and local governments do not have the option of deficit spending. Many state constitutions require balanced budgets and allow the incurrence of debt only for capital expenditures, primarily through the issuance of bonds. There is a real-market check on borrowing in this manner, imposed by bond ratings and interest rates, which can serve to enforce a substantial level of fiscal discipline on state and local governments.
|
|
In recent years, state and local revenue growth has suffered from the change in direction of the U.S. economy from a manufacturing to a service orientation. Revenue-producing measures have lagged behind this trend in several respects. Although sales taxes are the most important revenue source for most states, they are usually assessed only on goods and only in limited ways on services. A service-based economy may also be characterized by lower wages and less capital investment and may, therefore, limit the revenue potential of property and income taxes.
In some states, local taxing authorities may exist for special municipal or regional purposes, such as the public schools, utility service districts, and others. In such cases citizens may have an effective veto or approval power over the raising of revenue for such services through their ability to vote on specific income or property tax increases.
Federal policies have had a great effect on state and local government revenue in recent years. While there has been a decline of federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments, total federal aid has increased over the last 20 years, when payments to individuals as entitlements, such as Medicaid, are included. Medicaid expenditures have increased steadily. Rising health care costs and population increases also have been factors. Federal financial support for Medicaid entitlements may decline or grow less rapidly in the future with perhaps little corresponding decline in the expectations of benefit recipients. This prospect for devolution of federal responsibilities may force hard choices onto state governments and bring pressure on state and local revenue. The use of revenues may be affected, which in turn, may influence demand for local services.
Total expenditures of the public sector equal $2.9 trillion. The federal sector spends 53 percent of this total, while the state and local sectors split the remainder almost equally at 24 percent and 23 percent, respectively. The largest portion of state and local government spending, 33 percent, is devoted to education. Public welfare and "other," which includes housing and community development, account for 16 percent and 14 percent of expenditures, respectively. Figure 14 depicts fiscal year 1992 state and local government expenditures by all categories.
|
General Expenditures, (1992) |
Pressure on state and local governments are being brought by three increasingly large components of spending: education, corrections and Medicaid.
Medicaid is the fastest growing component of expenditues, having increased by 8.4 percent between 1994 and 1995. Expenditures in corrections, where major capital improvements and increasing operating costs are projected into the future, grew 8 percent over the same one-year period.
Expenditures for primary and secondary education grew at a 4 percent rate from 1994 to 1995. Litigation has required some states to become more involved in the financing of school operations, since local expenditures for kindergarten through 12th grade have fallen short of needs in some areas. Related to this trend, there have been serious questions in some states regarding the equity of school funding when poor districts or communities are contrasted to areas with a more robust tax base. Expenditures for higher education also grew at a 4 percent rate last year and are expected to continue experiencing financial pressures.
Finally, public employee pension funds represent a large sum of capital. As of the end of 1994, total state and local government retirement funds equaled nearly $1.176 trillion dollars, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Of concern as fiscal pressure mounts in state and local government is the importance of appropriately managing these dollars. Because of their size and the complexity of evaluating fund assets, pension plans are sometimes scrutinized in the context of budget balancing activities. This practice is the subject of controversy. The predicted demands on public employee retirement plans in the coming decades will be large, necessitating careful planning for benefits and sound management of pension funds.
Trends in Privatization and Contracting Out
Privatization and contracting out of functions and services of state and local government have been politically in vogue and have received a lot of attention in recent years. Strictly speaking, privatization involves a divestiture of public responsibility, resources and/or facilities. Contracting out involves the government entity retaining a measure of control, and sometimes providing facilities or resources. While the Task Force did not set out to research privatization trends in a comprehensive manner, there is information of significance to share from a full day of testimony and from field visits, that hopefully will contribute constructively to the debate and consideration of the topic.
On the one hand, contracting out is not new. Government has long contracted out for many services, prominent among them major construction projects, food services, certain social services, janitorial services, golf courses and, to some extent, sanitation services. Growth in these typical areas seems to continue, perhaps paralleling growth in state and local populations and government services. Despite the increased level of discussion and debate on privatization or contracting out, especially in non-traditional areas, the extent of any increase in it is far less clear, and may be overstated in the current conventional wisdom.
Whether or not contracting out grows substantially in the future, and in which areas, is open to further observation and tests of efficacy in different settings. In hearing testimony from advocates, opponents and observers and in visiting many communities where contracting out was an important subject of discussion, a number of trends and issues worthy of note to a rational debate seem to emerge from observations in both union and non-union settings:
First, although the level of discussion of, and interest in, contracting out is quite substantial, any increase is far less dramatic than the level of discussion and popular reporting suggests. Even in areas which were reputed to be active in contracting out, new contracting out was actually limited, normally to a few services, and normally to a small impact on numbers of employees. There are some dramatic examples of contracting out or privatization, but those seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
Second, contrary to much of the current popular discussion, private sector costs are not necessarily lower than the cost of providing the service within the governmental structure. As the Task Force saw in numerous site visits, where internal systems are reformed and overhead reduced, and the work, in some instances, redesigned, in-house cost of services can be even with or cheaper than outsourcing. There does not appear to be a widespread inherent cost advantage to outsourcing, particularly in core services. As in other comparisons, the advantages or disadvantages depend importantly on local factors and history, as well as the leadership and imagination of the employees, union officials and managers on the local scene.
Some projected cost savings may actually represent cost-shifting to another budget or to the future, although it is early yet to fully measure or assess. One example of cost shifting that requires examination is that payroll savings for a jurisdiction may show up as welfare or health care costs in a different budget or at another level of government. There is some evidence that workers laid off through contracting out and, who do not find other work, or work with benefits, can end up receiving public assistance and health care through emergency room service, funded through state or county programs. In regard to long-term costs, as opponents and proponents all acknowledge, creating private monopolies risks lack of attention to or control of costs.
Third, where it has been attempted, contracting out does not appear to be as quick or easy as is often suggested. Monitoring contracts of complex, hard-to-measure services is far more difficult than traditional contracting or purchasing. Many public jurisdictions do not have well-established means to set effective bid requirements and conditions, to thoroughly evaluate the bids, and then to measure performance.
Fourth, there is a general lack of adequate financial and performance data to actually measure cost and quality in order to know whether either a bid or later performance represents an improvement in cost or quality of the service. Most public jurisdictions do not collect financial information in a way that allows those comparisons to be made. Without such data, comparisons between in-house work and outsourced work are nearly impossible. In fact, without the data to make year-to-year comparisons, it is equally difficult to identify improvements or difficulties in cost and service levels when performed in-house.
Fifth, in some of the popular discourse on privatization or contracting out, there is an implication that public employee wage and benefit levels make it impossible to match private sector costs of the same service. While wage and benefit levels can certainly have an effect, depending upon the combinations of skills and schedules applied to accomplishing particular work, the wage and benefit levels appeared to be far less significant factors than changes in systems, work practices and improvements in communication and coordination arrangements. Even in the most impressive examples found by the Task Force of public employees matching private sector bids (or otherwise achieving significant cost and quality improvements through systems changes, elimination of overhead, redesign and other reforms), the levels of employee wages and benefits were unchanged.
Sixth, the presumption that quality is lower when done by government appears to be a part of the government bashing that is currently popular, rather than a reflection of reality. As noted and acknowledged in site visits and in testimony, excellent work, in fact, is available in both sectors. Employees with the tools to affect the way in which the job is done can provide high quality service, whether they work in government or the private sector. Where service was not sufficiently effective or costs were too high, poor management systems, poor accountability, poor planning and other problems were noted in both contracted and in-house services.
Seventh, a major issue about which there is substantial agreement among proponents and opponents is the importance of a "level playing field." This concept involves having fair and clear ground rules -- primary among them, what cost comparison methodology will be used -- as well as other expectations of the competitive process, such that the public actually gets a real benefit in quality and cost of services. Some new contracting out is occurring in the context of "level playing field" arrangements. Naturally, public employees oppose contracting out that is simply imposed, since it threatens their jobs and because the surrounding discussion often demeans their personal abilities.
However, where public employees whose jobs would otherwise be on the line have a full and fair chance at preserving those jobs through effective opportunities at systems reform and other changes, they were most often able to demonstrate their ability to deliver the services in a sufficiently cost effective and high quality manner to preserve those jobs. This was most commonly accomplished through cooperative labor-management relationships where employees and their representatives participated in defining the ground rules for cost comparisons, and which also served as the structure for identifying reforms in the way the work was performed.
Overall, the trends are clearly toward an increased level of discussion of contracting out, with some interesting experiments, and no diminution of traditional areas of contracting. Despite some increase, the use of contracting out appears to be more limited and with far more variables affecting cost and quality than simply the difference between government or private sector responsibility for the service. While there are examples of successful contracting out as one tool in a service improvement strategy, and instances which take place within the context of a cooperative collective bargaining relationship, it has not become a widespread substitute for delivery of core government services. (For additional observations concerning contracting out, that draws further on site visits and testimony, see Chapters Two and Six. Witnesses and sites where this issue was considered are noted in Appendix C and D.)
Demogaphics of the State and Local Government Workforce
The demographic characteristics of the state and local government work force are somewhat different from the private sector. The previous Figure 1 compares the private sector work force with that of state and local governments over a 10 year period. In 1995, state and local governments employed a higher percentage of women and blacks than the private sector. Although Hispanic employment has been less than that in the private sector, the proportion of Hispanics in the state and local sectors increased significantly over the last ten years. These comparisons are reflected in Figures 15 and 16 below.
|
Local Government by Sex, 1995 Annual Averages |
|
Government Who are Black and of Hispanic Origin, 1995 Annual Averages |
State and local governments also employ higher percentages of older workers than the private sector, as shown in Figure 17. Job tenure tends to be slightly longer in the public sector. Average tenure in the same job is more than eight years in state government and more than nine years in local government, compared to fewer than seven years in the private sector.
|
Government, by Age, 1995 Annual Averages |
Educational attainment in the public sector is higher than in the private sector. Figure 18 shows that twice as many employees of state and local governments graduated from college as have employees in the private sector. While approximately the same percentage of workers in all three sectors attended some amount of college short of graduation, the private sector employs significantly more workers with only a high school education or less than does state or local governments.
|
State and Local Government, 1995 Annual Averages |
Public Employee Attitudes Towards Participation and Representation and Comparisons to the Private Sector
In early 1994, a survey of private sector workers was released which examined their attitudes towards workplace participation and representation was presented to the Dunlop Commission.[31] Princeton Survey Research Associates performed the survey and the analysis was by Richard Freeman of Harvard University and Joel Rogers of the University of Wisconsin. Their analysis and conclusions noted a high level of interest among private sector workers in participating in decisions at their workplace. One important conclusion was that employees felt that they could contribute far more to the improvement of products or services if given the chance.
Also, most workers responding to this private sector survey said that the most effective workplace employee organization would be one that management accepted and with which management cooperated. Cooperation rather than conflict was the preferred way of dealing, although the independence of the employee organization was important to them.
After reviewing the analysis and hearing testimony from one of the authors, the Task Force commissioned the same group to do a parallel study of public worker attitudes at the state and local level.[32] The purpose, similarly, was to gauge the attitudes and experience of public sector employees in the areas of participation and representation. Among the observations, several factors emerged that may make the environment for participative programs in the public sector at least somewhat more hospitable than in the private sector. These included the somewhat unexpected high incidence of participative programs in the public sector than in the private sector. It was even a bit higher, proportionately, than in the private sector.
The following is a summary of results of the public sector study, with references to interesting comparisons with the 1994 private sector workforce survey.
Job Satisfaction
Public employees report higher levels of job satisfaction than employees in the private sector. About 75 percent of public employees say they look forward to going to work every day. Interestingly, by education, 22 percent of college graduates report dissatisfaction and 32 percent of those without college report dissatisfaction with their jobs in the public sector.
Evaluation of Managerial Competence
Public workers saw managers as competent and concerned, but rated them as mediocre in leadership and poor to negative on fairness and sharing power. These results suggest some opportunities for improving managers' ability to lead in a more participatory workplace and also probably reflect some of the difficulties in leadership and decision-making in the often changing public sector environment.
Participation
The incidence of participatory programs was higher in the public sector than in the private sector, but private sector workers found the programs effective twice as often as did public employees. In the public sector there are more participative programs in union settings. Only 20 percent of public workers found participation mechanisms "very effective" in improving productivity or quality, although a majority of workers found them "somewhat effective." Many workers felt that they could contribute more if given the opportunity.
There was also significant sentiment that public sector management is only completely dedicated to existing participatory programs 30 percent of the time. Fifty-one percent of the time they were "mostly committed" and 17 percent of the time they were "not too committed". In the private sector nearly 50 percent of employees covered by participative programs thought management was completely dedicated. In reviewing these results, the survey analysts suggest that there is a "shallowness" to a high proportion of the public sector participation efforts, reflecting perhaps lesser experience or investment in working out program details.
While all public employees show a high desire for input into service and workplace issues, teachers show the highest desire. About 17 percent of public employees say they are "very satisfied" with their degree of input. Twenty-six percent of public employees said they were "not too satisfied" or "not at all satisfied". In the middle were 56 percent who reported being "somewhat satisfied" with their level of input. Teachers, once again, led in satisfaction with 20 percent saying they were very satisfied with their ability to have input. Public safety employees were the least satisfied, with only 10 percent describing themselves as "very satisfied" with their degree of involvement in decisions. (In hearings, police representatives reported that they could find few, if any, examples of labor-management cooperative programs to report to the Task Force.) More generally, 85 percent of respondents said they wanted more involvement in decisions, pointing out that it was not simply for the benefits they might receive, but for making the program or service more effective.
Representation
Like the private sector, employees in public agencies thought that employee representation on workplace teams and committees would be more effective if employees were directly elected, were volunteers or were selected by a union or employee organization. Only 8 percent in the survey favored management selection. In rating unions, 64 percent of public sector union members said they were "good" or "very good;" only 8 percent said they were "bad" or "very bad." Eighty-three percent of union members said they would keep the union in place if given a choice today, while 13 percent said they would get rid of it. Like the results of the private sector survey, employees in public agencies indicated that in being represented, they preferred an employee organization that a) selected its own representatives to workplace teams, and b) had independent resolution of disputes (such as by an arbitrator). However, they wanted more "jointness" or cooperation with management as a standard way of operating. Cooperation was preferable to conflict, although public employees were willing to have an employee organization more independent of--and less cooperative with--management than were private sector employees. Clearly, however, a conflictual form of representation was not preferable. Public employees saw a better climate than did private sector employees for cooperative relationships between management and employee organizations.
Survey Summary
To summarize the results, public workers are generally somewhat more satisfied than are private sector workers with their jobs. As do private sector employees, public employees believe that cooperative relations with management are more productive; they wish to be attentive to service needs and seek greater workplace influence in improving government productivity and performance. Similarly, public workers welcome management's interest in workplace innovation and cooperative programs, but would like to see stronger programs in which they feel they can play an effective role and have a real voice in decision making. So, while existing private sector programs may often be more fully developed, there appears, interestingly, to be a greater proportionate incidence and interest in participative programs in the public sector. These factors suggest a more receptive environment in public employment. If so, the public sector could benefit from some leadership effort and investment in strong employee participation programs in order to upgrade service quality, cost-effectiveness and quality of work life.
Representation and Collective Bargaining
Union presence in the public sector is substantial. In 1995, there were 7 million union members working for federal, state and local governments. This was nearly 38 percent of the total employment in the overall public sector. By comparison, there were 9.4 million union members in the private sector in 1995, equal to 10.4 percent of total private employment. The total percent of public sector workers represented by labor unions (not all are members) is 43.5 percent, equal to 8.2 million employees. Figures 19 and 20 below display the characteristics of unionization in the combined federal, state, and local government sectors.
|
|
|
Percentage of Employment, 1983-95 |
![Union Membership in Governement[1] as a Percentage of Employment, 1983-95](fig20.gif)
State and local government employees are not covered by the national labor laws which govern representational and collective bargaining rights and procedures for federal and private sector workers. Unlike the private sector and federal employment, where all workers have the right to collective representation, state and local workers have rights to representation and collective bargaining only if authorized by state law and, in a few instances, local ordinances. Currently, 23 states and the District of Columbia have laws governing the representational and collective bargaining rights of public workers. These laws cover more than 9 million workers in those jurisdictions. Thirteen additional states have laws which govern certain occupational groups, such as state employees only or, perhaps, police, fire fighters or teachers. Some 750,000 out of the 2.5 million public workers in these states are covered under the partial statutes.
Fourteen states have no state-wide representational or collective bargaining statute, affecting 4 million state and local public employees. In some of these states, jurisdictions have passed local ordinances or elected officials have issued executive orders granting some representational or collective bargaining rights to public employees. Figure 21 is a map which summarizes the states that have laws providing collective bargaining rights for public employees.
|
|
The negotiation of collective bargaining agreements in state and local government is carried out under procedures unique to the public sector. For example, the right-to-strike is limited or more usually nonexistent. Some states have separate labor relations and collective bargaining systems, and often a special method for contract dispute resolution, for police and fire fighters. In contrast to the private sector, there is a separation between the executive and legislative functions of government affecting financial commitments. Unlike most private sector situations, this can result in a legislative body exercising the "power of the purse" over an agreement negotiated between the executive branch and employee representatives.
Where state laws provide for public employee collective bargaining, union representation is high. Nearly 60 percent of state and local employees who are guaranteed the right to collective bargaining by state law are covered by a union contract. In general, when state or local public sector employees seek to organize for union representation, a recent study by Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University and Tom Juravich of the University of Massachusetts[33] suggests they are successful far more often than in the private sector.
Through painstaking research, Bronfenbrenner and Juravich considered all representation elections held in 1991 and 1992. Their study concluded that in elections for union representation in the state and local public sector, employees chose union representation 84.9 percent of the time compared to 48 percent of the time in private sector elections. The margin of victory in favor of union representation in the public sector was also higher, 83.2 percent compared to 68.2 percent. Interestingly, these results were consistent across all levels of employment and professions. Bronfenbrenner and Juravich also found a first contract negotiation rate of 88.4 percent in the state and local public sector as compared to the 67 percent rate in the private sector, as estimated by the (Dunlop) Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations. The authors attribute these public and private sector differences largely to a greater level of employer hostility to unionization in private employment.
The Public's Opinion of State and Local Government
Several Task Force witnesses presented data addressing the declining credibility of government with the public. This seems to be especially true with respect to confidence of citizens in state and local governments' ability to provide citizens with timely, efficient and cost-effective services.
Geoff Garin of Garin-Hart Strategic Research presented to the Task Force an overview of data concerning attitudes towards government gathered by various polling organizations over the last 24 years. He found that public opinion as to whether the federal government was doing a "good" or "fair" job fell from 70 percent to 42 percent between 1972 and 1992. The favorable opinion of state government fell from 63 percent to 51 percent over the same period, though it rose in some intervening years to as high as 70 percent. Additionally, the favorable rating of local government fell from 73 percent in 1987 to 60 percent in 1992.
Garin suggested that these results should be placed in the context of a general cynicism concerning government, politicians and special interest groups. In a poll conducted by his organization in 1992, only 43 percent of the respondents believed that the majority of public employees deliver an honest day's work. Only 19 percent, however, felt that public employees were not dedicated or were incompetent, apparently placing some of the blame for poor performance on managers, politicians, or other systemic factors. Sixty-three percent indicated that workers don't receive proper motivation and assistance from the heads of their agencies.
In a poll of registered voters in New York, presented in Figure 22, Garin found that the public believed that the state legislature and governor were the most responsible for New York's problems. Fewer voters put the blame on state or local government employees. In fact, more felt that state and local employees were a part of the solution to problems than were politicians. While 53 percent believed that public employee unions and contractors were part of the problem, more people indicated that the unions were part of the solution as opposed to the contractors. The results of the New York State survey are presented in Figure 22.
Despite their somewhat jaundiced view of the results of government activities, the American public in a 1993 Roper poll indicates that they still look to government to help individuals, families, communities and businesses to prosper. Figure 22 indicates the percentage of citizens who support more government action in various areas. Most of the activities highlighted in the Roper study are, in large part, functions of state and local governments. Garin also suggested that research indicated that citizens are not necessarily looking for less government, but for better government at the most reasonable cost. They want governmental leaders to set standards of accountability for programs, employees, and contractors and fix or eliminate programs that aren't working.
Summarizing the trends described in this chapter, fiscal pressures will continue to grow, even as demand for state and local government services increases, especially in education, but also in other areas. Contracting out, while interest is expanding, remains controversial and is not a panacea for addressing fiscal problems. Citizens are skeptical of government, find inefficiencies and waste, but are usually very appreciative of individual public employees with whom they have contact. Public employees have strong backgrounds and skills, and seek a greater voice in and more cooperative structures for, service provision and workplace problem solving.
In conjunction with the pressures and opportunities described in Chapter Two, the information in this chapter only adds to the need for participatory and cooperative approaches to public service delivery and labor-management relations. The next chapter offers a description of the common ingredients that went into successful attempts to use workplace cooperation and participation, particularly in labor-management partnerships, as a primary strategy for improvement in public service and cost-effectiveness.
