Rules for Civil Servants

Traditionally, governments have been hostile to public sector unions, and in the past, repressive laws have made strikes illegal. Nevertheless, strikes broke out and governments eventually adopted an attitude of open encouragement towards trade unionism. Most governments accept, at least in theory, that the state should be a model employer. It follows that if the State really pursues a policy of discussion and negotiation with civil servants and tries to properly comply with agreements with them, it should in return be exempted from the threat of strike. Recognizing that the withdrawal of civil servants from some public services would lead to chaos, many governments have seen fit to establish permanent channels of bargaining on issues such as wages and discipline. Organizations representing the staff and management of senior government officials reflect the private sector employer-employee relationship, although a higher percentage of public sector employees than in the private sector are unionized. The United Kingdom was the first country to put in place negotiation mechanisms for civil servants. According to a 1917 report, organizations known as Whitley Councils were formed, consisting of an equal number of average and lower staff on the one hand and senior and supervisory staff on the other. These councils work within departments, and a Whitley National Council has central advisory functions to government. However, they have no decision-making power, only advisory powers, because governments are never prepared to give up their ultimate responsibility to determine the public interest.

The councils did much to create a sense of shared purpose and responsibility within the public service as a whole, although wage restraint in the early 1970s led to great tensions between public sector unions and the government. There are different attitudes about the extent to which public servants are allowed to engage in political activities. According to one view, a public servant has the same constitutional rights as other citizens and that it is therefore unconstitutional to attempt to restrict those rights other than by common law. The opposite view is that, since public servants perform the unique function of national government, their integrity and loyalty to their political masters could be compromised by active participation in political affairs and public confidence in their impartiality could be undermined. Overall, countries that have traditionally expected public servants to behave in a completely impartial manner and to adhere to departmental policy with energy and goodwill, whether or not they agree with it, expect all public servants to behave prudently in political matters. The United Kingdom totally prohibits its senior officials from engaging in any form of political activity. However, the ban is becoming less and less strict for the middle and lower grades. Until after World War II, the generally accepted view in the United States was that of Pres. Calvin Coolidge: “There is no right of anyone, anywhere, at any time to strike against public safety. Although federal employees are still prohibited from striking, a rule exemplified by the dismissal of striking air traffic controllers in 1981, consultations have intensified and, in many federal departments, appeal committees composed of department heads and one or more members of the Merit Systems Protection Board can now hear appeals by public servants against decisions that affect their careers. These committees are also consulted on general departmental matters, such as job classification, pensions, promotion policy and administrative procedures.

The objective of the Public Service Rules is to ensure a fair and effective system of human resources management. Another group of countries, including France and Germany, believe that politics and administration are so closely linked that all high-level positions are filled at the discretion of the respective governments. This gives public servants greater flexibility in their political activities. However, they are expected to act with more discretion and public decency than individuals, and an excess of power or abuse of power for political purposes renders a public servant immediately liable to both legal requirements and severe internal disciplinary procedures. The forerunners of the officials who were members of the royal household had duties but no rights. Early attempts to formalize appointment methods and conditions of service were among the administrative innovations introduced in Prussia in the 18th century. Elsewhere, attempts have failed due to political and public objections. Stricter formal regulation of conditions of service emerged when civil servants organized themselves into occupational groups that sometimes differed little from trade unions. The fact that civil servants are public officials and provide services that affect public order, order and public health has raised the question of whether they are authorized to strike; If they cannot strike legitimately, they are deprived of their main weapon in order to press for improved conditions of service. Specific provisions have been developed for the regular review of conditions of service and the settlement of disputes.

In particular, there was a need for a properly recognized system for regulating behaviour and discipline. In the United Kingdom, traditional standards are supplemented or revised in response to the recommendations of periodic commissions of inquiry, which pay particular attention to official conduct in relation to political activities and business relations. In France and Germany, these codes of conduct are mainly based on the rules of administrative law and the case law of the administrative courts, although certain rights and obligations of the civil service are provided for in constitutional law. In other countries, particularly the United States and India, conduct and discipline are governed by administrative rules and codes issued by decree after discussion and investigation. The standards set for the conduct of a public servant are partly those expected of any loyal, competent and obedient employee, and partly those imposed on a public official. Ideally, the public servant should be above suspicion of bias and should not allow sympathy, loyalty or self-interest to interfere with the performance of his or her duties; For example, a public servant is required to be prudent in private financial transactions. As a general rule, a civil servant may not directly or indirectly exercise a profession and may engage in social or charitable organizations only if these are not related to official functions. There are always strict limits on a public servant`s right to lend or borrow money, and he or she is prohibited from accepting gifts. In France, each ministry has a similar advisory body, but its work is broader in that it can review recruitment, personnel records, promotions and disciplinary proceedings. There is also a National Council, chaired by the Prime Minister or a specially appointed Minister of the Civil Service, which deals with general personnel policy, conditions of service and the coordination of departmental committees. GUIDELINE 1: ORGANIZATION OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES If you have any questions, suggestions for improvement or comments on the Public Service Rules page, please contact Jasmine Elliston at (612) 673-3103. The latest report on equal employment opportunities for the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2015 is available below.

This report measures the current state of our progress towards a municipal workforce that better reflects the community we serve and is consistent with the Statement of Positive Measures outlined in Public Service Commission Regulation 5. Scroll down to select a specific policy, chapter, or rule. To search for guidelines and rules by keyword, please visit NESSIE. In the city of Minneapolis, our commitment to diversity and inclusion is critical to living up to our values and achieving our goals. Two of our most important stated goals are justice and good governance of the city. One of the most important ways to achieve these goals is to hold ourselves accountable as an employer for equal opportunities.