"Employment Law." Please respond to the following:
* Analyze Garcetti v. Ceballos, to determine whether or not the Pickering balancing test is applicable to this case and state why or why not.
In the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, the issue is, “whether job-related speech of public employees should have First Amendment protection” (AAUP, 2014). Richard Ceballos, an employee at the LA County district attorney’s office, suspected that a deputy sheriff included false statements in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos informed his supervisors and the defense attorney involved in the case of his suspicions. Ceballos was demoted from his position and claimed the demotion occurred in ...view middle of the document...
Justice Marshall mentioned that the principle of the test applies regardless of the public employee’s contractual or other claims to a job” so Ceballos was technically protected by the First Amendment. Like in Pickering V. Board of Education, Ceballos spoke out on a matter of public concern.
Szypszak, C. J. (2011). Understanding Law for Public Administration. Chapel Hill: Jones and
* Many states are facing budget constraints that are shining a light on public employees’ pay and benefits, which have led to debates about state employees’ collective bargaining rights. From a public administrator perspective, speculate to the short-term and long-term effects if limited collective bargaining is adopted. Hint: Look at all the stakeholders involved.
Collective bargaining is a process in which working people, through their unions, negotiate contracts with employers to determine their terms of employment, including pay, health care, pensions and other benefits, hours, leave, job health and safety policies, ways to balance work and family and more. Employees jointly decide their priorities for bargaining (AFL-CIO, 2014).
President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress enacted the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, which awarded collective bargaining rights on private-sector workers, but no such rights were given to public sector employees. “In fact, both Roosevelt and later George Meany, the first president of the AFL-CIO, opposed collective bargaining for the public sector (Crane, 2011). It is left to the individual states to determine whether there is collective bargaining in public sector jobs.
Civil servants who have the right to join together to negotiate with the government regarding their working conditions, pay, and benefits, gain the ability to hold their employer, the government, accountable while ensuring that factors such as money or political affiliation are not causes for mistreatment and termination (Langford, 2012).
The situations in Wisconsin and other states where public sector employees are losing their right to collective bargaining highlights this point. Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin removed collective bargaining rights for only a select group of public employees who supported his opponent for the office. Though the Governor claimed his action was about saving money, he continued his push to strip collective bargaining even after the unions agree to dramatic pay and benefit cuts. His continued push clearly demonstrated that his real interests lie in preventing public sector employees from challenging his authority and in crippling the unions’ ability to balance out corporate and money interests in the state’s political system (Langford, 2012).
This situation signifies the...