Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 32–39 | Cite as

Fringe benefits: The hidden costs of unionization and collective bargaining in corrections

  • Barry D. Smith
  • Allen D. Sapp


Public Sector Unionization is a phenomenon characterized by rapid growth. Many studies have found, however, that the pay differential between unionized and non-unionized public sector employees is relatively small. This study posits the theory that one possible explanation is that unionized public sector employees are making gains in an area where the cost of concessions is somewhat hidden. Specifically, that unionized public sector employees enjoy a substantial lead in number of fringe benefits. The public sector area chosen for study is that of corrections. A questionnaire was constructed and mailed to all 50 state correctional systems assessing whether or not employees received 35 fringe benefits. The fringe benefits are divided into five categories and reported in tabular form. In addition, the fringe benefits are examined as a composite index and a comparison is then made between unionized and non-unionized employees. The results clearly show that unionized correctional employees have a considerable advantage in the number of fringe benefits enjoyed.


Sick Leave Collective Bargaining Fringe Benefit Correctional Officer Public Sector Employee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ayres, R.M., & Wheelan, T.L. (1977).Collective bargaining in the public sector: Selected readings in law enforcement. Gaitherslurgh, MD: International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Hamermesh, L. (1976, January). The effect of government ownership on union wages.Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 29(2), 245.Google Scholar
  3. Jacobs, J.B., & Crotty, N.M. (1978).Guard unions and the future of the prison. (Institute of Public Employment Monograph). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  4. Johnson, C.L., & Copus, G.D. (1980).A comparative analysis of the intitial security officer position in state penal institutions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Oklahoma City, OK.Google Scholar
  5. Lewis, H.G. (1963).Unionism and relative wages in the United States: An empirical inquiry. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Mabry, B. (1973, February). The economics of fringe benefits.Industrial Relations, 12, 95–106.Google Scholar
  7. Martin, P.L. (1979).Contemporary labor relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Mitchell, D.J.B. (1980).Unions, wages, and inflation. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Montilla, M.R. (1978, January).Prison employee unionism: Management guide for correctional administrators, Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
  10. Pugh, M.P. (1980).The effect of unionization versus non-unionization on wage determination in muticipal police agencies with one hundred or more sworn or unsworn personnel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University.Google Scholar
  11. Smith, S.P. (1976, January). Pay differentials between federal government and private sector workers.Industrial and Labor Relations Review.29(2), 180.Google Scholar
  12. Wynne, J.M., Jr. (1978, January).Prison employee unionism: The impact on correctional administration and programs. National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry D. Smith
    • 1
  • Allen D. Sapp
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeSoutheast Missouri State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Central Missouri State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations