The Participation of Officials in Administration
| Author | A.J.T. Day |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1948.tb02643.x |
| Date | 01 June 1948 |
| Published date | 01 June 1948 |
The
Participation
of
Officials
in
Administration
Generd
Report
made
by
to
the
Internatd
Congress
of
Adm’nistratave
Sciences;
based
on
vm~ous
national
reports.
FROM
a
consideranon
of
the reports
I
have seen it emerges that the position
of
the staff associations or
unions
can
only be assessed by considering four
questions. First:
What
is their status-what limitations, if any, are imposed
on
the
character
they may
bear-in
short,
on
what terms
do
they exist?
Secondly, what scope are they allowed
in
discharging their primary function-
the function for which they were created& protecting and promoting the
occupational interests
of
their members?
What
facilities do they enjoy-are
they endured as a necessary evil or welcomed as valued coadjutors in the amic-
able adjustment
of
conditions of service
and
the timely settlement of
staff
grievances? Thirdly, above
and
beyond
this
primary
function, what freedom
have they to contribute to the solution of those problems of day-today adminis-
tration,
other than
staff
administration,
on
which the knowledge and experience
of
the rank and file
can
usefully
be
brought
to
bear?
And
lastly,
is
there room
for them to express
staff
opinion, helpfully to the administration,
on
issues of
high policy as distinct from the day-today execution of policy? After examining
each
of
these quesclgns,
I
shall conclude
with
a few observations on the line that
future developments ought
in
my opinion to take.
First, then, the status of
staff
associations
in
the public service.
In
some
of
the
countries
from
which reports have come, one finds complete freedom
of
association among public servants themselves,
and
equally complete freedom
of
combination with other workers if they
so
desire.
But
the
freedom is merently
based.
In
France, for example, it is
affirmed
by law,
as
though it were some-
thing to
be
enjoyed only
if
the State, by a positive act, conferred it. In the
United States
and
in
England,
on
the other hand,
it
rests on no law but is
tacitly
assumed
as
one
of
the basic freedoms
which
the
law
can take away but
cannot
confer.
To
put it differently,
this
freedom
is
in the one case explicit
and
in
the other implicit. The result
is
apparently the same, but the approach
to it is different, probably because of differences
in
national habits of mind.
The next
thing
onc
notices
is a tendency
in
some quarters to contemplate
limitations on
the
freedom
of
association of public servants
in
particular.
It
is
suggested, for example, that they should be forbidden to affiliate
to
general
federations of trade unions,
or
to belong to unions representing others besides
public officials,
or
to oiganise in the normal trade
union
form.
This
last suggestion is directed in particular against the concession of the
legal right to strike, and because
it
is the
most
difKcult and controversial of the
three
I
will address myself
to
it at once.
The
first thing
I
would say about it
is
that it confuses thought by confusing terms. The significant thing about a strike
is not the right to engage in it, but thr power
to
do
so.
This
power is inherent:
it
is,
quite simply, the power to stay
at
home. In the last resort
no
man
can
be
A.
J.
T.
DAY,
C.B.E.,
110
To continue reading
Request your trial