ABSTRACT
This chapter investigates the important issue by analyzing the Michigan experience with compulsory arbitration for police and firefighters in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. To deal with strikes, slowdowns, sick-outs, and other job actions by public employees local governments have turned to compulsory arbitration in an effort to treat unions equitably while at the same time preventing the disruption of essential public services. The chapter examines the important question of whether, in general, wage increases granted under compulsory arbitration statutes tend to be higher than those resulting from other dispute settlement procedures. It utilizes both minimum and maximum salaries to determine whether the benefits awarded under compulsory arbitration were significantly higher than those determined through collective negotiations. The chapter is concerned with a critical problem of public sector labor relations: whether compulsory arbitration offers a viable grievance settlement for policemen, firemen, and other public employees performing vital services.
