Suchergebnisse

WHILE UNION ORGANIZING OF THE ARMED FORCES IS PROHIBITED, THIS ARTICLE ARGUES THAT THERE ARE STILL BASIC "REPRESENTATION" ISSUES NOT YET ADDRESSED BY LAW OR POLICY. THE PAPER ADDRESSES THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF THREE FACTORS IN THE CHANGING ARMED SERVICES AND SUGGESTS REPRESENTATION APPROACHES COMPATIBLE WITH MILITARY NEEDS AND TRADITIONS.

On 8 Nov 1978, President Carter brought Public Law 95-610 into force by signing bill S.274. This law prohibits union organizations of the armed forces, membership in military labor organizations by members of the armed forces, & recognition of military labor organizations by the government, imposing severe sanctions for violations. However, the law does not settle basic issues involving the broader concept of representation, even if it survives possible court challenges to its constitutionality. Remaining issues focus on changes in demography & enlistment rules, Dept of Defense responses to these changes, & evolution of organizations of present & former military personnel into more union-like activities. Approaches are suggested compatible with both military needs & civilian traditions. Modified HA.

Since its introduction in 1977 (see SA 26:3/78J3470), the institutional/occupational (I/O) thesis has generated a growing body of international research. The basic proposition is that the military is moving from an institutional to an occupational format. The thesis is brought up to date by greater specification of I/O variables in military organization. Variables include legitimacy, role commitments, compensation systems, spouse, reference groups, legal system, & postservice status. The current formulation favors an approach that examines shifting constellations of I/O features within armed forces. 1 Table. HA