In the workforce, there are two categories of how jobs are classified. There are jobs that are in the public sector, such as state and federal government jobs, and jobs that are in the private sector, which would be all other jobs not included in the public sector, such as working for a local organization or company that is not controlled by some form of government. Unlike other topics that have been covered throughout the course, most of the general population has a clear understanding distinguishing the difference between jobs that are in the public and private sector. However, something they may not know is that there is a difference between public sector labor relations and private sector labor relations. Most people believe that labor relations are the same in the public and private sector and that the title just changes based on whether it is a public sector job or a job that is found in the private sector. Having work experience in both the public sector, as well as the private sector, I am able to see the difference that exists with the labor relations process between the two. From my experience, the labor relations process in the public sector seems to gain more attention than the labor relations process in the private sector. However, there is a reason for this as public sector labor relations has an interesting history. In the beginning, public employees were required to lobby to their legislators for favorable employment for collective bargaining, an activity whereby union and management officials attempt to resolve conflicts of interest by exchanging commitments in a manner intended to sustain and possibly enrich their continuing relationship, to occur. As all things change, so have public sector labor relations. The text states, “Public-sector labor relations has moved from an earlier period characterized by rapid union growth, management’s inability to react to collective bargaining, and a fear of strikes to a period characterized by slower union growth” (Holley, Jennings and Wolters 575). Unfortunately, as many state legislatures and Congress try to reduce costs, the victims have been public sector employees who have become more concerned about their welfare and job security, rather than the work they are supposed to do. Recently, union leaders, including the union that I belong to, are increasing their attention to the concerns that employees have regarding job security and welfare. The public sector has become an important part of the collective bargaining environment in the United States and more public sector employees are members of unions than private sector employees. No unions existed that I knew of when I worked in the private sector but it was mandatory to join a union where I work in the public sector in order to receive benefits. This is one difference I see between public sector and private sector labor relations. Another difference that exists between the public and private sector, which I find significant, is discipline. From my experience, discipline was dealt with differently between the two sectors. In the private sector, employees were disciplined or discharged of off-duty incidents or behavior depending on the nature of the situation, but in the public sector, employees have a heightened sensitivity about off-duty misconduct. “As a general rule, in both the private and public sector, the employees retain the right to conduct their private lives as they see fit without the interference of their employer, and the employer has just cause to discipline employees only if there is a nexus (connection) between the off-duty conduct and the employment. However, it is well established that off-duty conduct of public employees is subject to closer employer scrutiny, and discipline is more likely than for similar conduct in the private sector.” (Holley, Jennings and Wolters 600) A good example of off-duty discipline is explained in detail in Case Study 13.2, “Discharge for Off-Duty Conduct”.
Case Study 13.2 asked the question of whether discharge for off-duty conduct was reasonable based on the circumstances. On March 4, 2011, Charles Lee was removed from the Postal Service. His Notice of Removal stated “you pled guilty to Count 1 of the information charging you with a violation of Title 18 USC § 371, Conspiracy to Commit an Offense or to Defraud the United States.” On August 9, 2010, Lee entered into a plea agreement which he signed, stating he engaged in a conspiracy to acquire financing for two quadraplex homes located at 8416 and 8418 Camden Street, Miami, Florida, as he lacked the necessary financial assets to qualify for these loans. The conspiracy explained that Lee employed the Paldo Corporation to purchase the quadraplexes for $100,000 each and signed contracts to purchase the same properties for $169,000 each. False data was provided to an appraiser to explain the inflated amounts for the properties and a lending institution extended loans in excess of the true values of the quadraplexes in order to qualify for mortgage financing, Lee submitted two mortgage loan applications falsely stating he made a $19,000 down payment to Paldo Corporation. This was not the case as he agreed with the realtor, Bert Muscat, to accept a rebate on Lee’s down payment in the amount of $19,000 from Muscat’s commission, accomplished through an exchange of checks. As a result, the claimed down payment was a bogus transaction and Lee was able to purchase the property without any payment and received an additional $10,000 rebate after closing, reducing the purchase price of the properties. Lee agreed not to disclose the rebate scheme to the financial institution with permission of the loan broker and also failed to disclose on the loan application the two other mortgage loans on which he was obligated. His plea of guilty to Count I of the information was accepted by United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 21, 2010. He was sentenced to six months house arrest, two years’ probation, and ordered to make restitution in the amount of $136,398.64 to the lending institution he had defrauded by U.S. District Judge William S. Casta on December 3, 2010.
Section 2635.101(a) of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch states in pertinent part: “Public service is a public trust [as] each employee has a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain.” Section 661.53 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual states: “Unacceptable Conduct. No employee will engage in criminal, dishonest, notoriously disgraceful or immoral conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the Postal Service. Conviction of a violation of any criminal statute may be grounds for disciplinary action by the Postal Service, in addition to any other penalty by or pursuant to statute.” Lee’s misconduct of conspiring to defraud the United States was in direct conflict with the basic obligations of public service and as a postal employee, he held a position that requires honesty and trustworthiness. He had the right to file a grievance with fourteen days from the removal notice receipt. On March 16, 2011, a step 1 meeting was held were a grievance based on the given information was written. The step 1 grievance was denied and appealed and the step 2 grievance was completed by the union steward, David Toover. The same day, a Step 2 meeting was held, which determined that Mr. Lee was properly removed from the postal service and the grievance was denied. The grievance was moved to the third step appeal and appealed to arbitration (Holley, Jennings and Wolters 623-625).
Based on the information given, I agree that Mr. Lee’s off-duty actions were reasonable enough for him to be discharged from the Postal Service. As Section 2635.101(a) of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch states: “Public service is a public trust…” and employees have “… a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain.” I work for a state government agency and understand this very well. We all must swear to a secrecy provision about what is done at work , not talk about it outside of work, and not be involved in misconduct outside of work, or we will be terminated upon knowledge of the misconduct that took place. In order to maintain a public sector job, one must be careful with their social life outside of work and make sure they do not get into any trouble that could risk them losing their job.
Jobs are classified into the public sector, which include government jobs, and the private sector, which include working for a small, privately-owned firm. There are major differences in both sectors when it comes to labor relations. In the public sector, unions are found with most jobs that exist, while in the private sector, unions are more uncommon. In regards to discipline, individuals who have jobs in the public sector must be careful of their behaviors and actions so they are not discharged from their job, as happened with Charles Lee and his position with the postal service. Things are more lenient in the private sector, but still could lead to discharge from a position depending on the nature of the situation. Overall, the labor relations processes for the different sectors are unlike each other and I believe that it will remain this way for many years to come.

Works Cited
Holley, William H., Kenneth M. Jennings and Roger S. Wolters. The Labor Relations Process. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.