In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, government positions were staffed by the family and friends of influential political officials, and government contracts were awarded to those with a personal relationship to government administrators, rather than on the basis of an open, competitive bidding process. These practices are collectively referred to as the “spoils system,” because they are rooted in the notion that to the victor (of the election) go the spoils (well-paying public jobs, government contracts). Between 1828 and 1880, the spoils system (also known as political patronage) grew rapidly as the size of the country expanded and state and local governments embarked on more ambitious infrastructure projects. By the 1870s, many Americans were concerned that the spoils system was creating dangerously high levels of political disruption and leading to dysfunctional government. In response to such concerns, there emerged a good-government coalition of political reformers who lobbied to establish a professional civil service system as a means to restore integrity to government. Not surprisingly, neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties warmly embraced these proposed reforms. Both parties had relied heavily upon patronage to reward loyal party workers who drummed up the voters they needed to win elections, and those who were awarded government jobs usually paid back a portion of their salary to the political party that gave them the job (often 10%). It was therefore in the financial and electoral interest of political parties to keep the spoils system in place.
Early in 1872, the controversy over civil service reform led to a major split within the Republican Party. Establishment leaders wanted nothing to do with civil service reform. In sharp contrast, a reform wing of the party pressed for civil service reforms and other good-government measures. This reform wing was highly critical of the administration of President Grant due to the widespread corruption within his administration. When Republican Party leaders refused to adopt the reform agenda, the liberal Republican wing left the party in protest. Liberal Republicans then held a convention of their own and nominated New York publisher Horace Greeley as their presidential candidate. Lacking an alternative candidate, the Democratic Party endorsed Greeley as well. During the Campaign of 1872, Grant gave the appearance of embracing civil service reform in an attempt to downplay the problems in his own administration. Greeley lost to President Grant in a landslide. Grant and the Republican Party promptly abandoned their support for civil service reform and returned to politics as usual.
In the Campaign of 1880, the Republican Party nominated James Garfield for president and Chester A. Arthur for vice president. Both Garfield and Arthur had a long record of supporting political patronage. These nominations dismayed reformers within the Republican Party who had believed that the party was moving away from patronage when it nominated Rutherford B. Hayes four years earlier. Despite internal dissent over the Garfield/Arthur ticket, the Republican nominees went on to narrowly win the election. Charles J. Guiteau, forever known as the “disappointed office-seeker,” shot President Garfield in July 1881, which thrust Chester Arthur into the presidency. To the surprise and anger of many Republican supporters of the patronage system, President Arthur threw his support behind the enactment of civil service reform legislation. Congress passed and Arthur signed into law the Civil Service Reform Act of 1883, more commonly known as the Pendleton Act. The law established an independent Civil Service Commission to conduct competitive examinations to fill a relatively small number of positions. The legislation also prohibited political assessments of civil service employees.
The Hatch Act, passed in 1939 and modified in 1993, further limited political activities in public employment at the federal, state, and local levels (although political appointees are subject to much looser restrictions). Specifically, the Hatch Act forbids public employees from engaging in political activities while on duty (including wearing or displaying items that express support for a party or candidate), engaging in or hosting political fund-raisers even when off duty, working for a partisan voter registration drive, holding office in a political club or party, or using any federal property (including Internet access or e-mail accounts) for campaign-related or partisan purposes. Employees may not be questioned about their political affiliation during the hiring process, and supervisors may not attempt to influence their vote in any way.
The passage of the Pendleton Act effectively ended civil service reform as a national political issue. Gradually, a series of presidential administrations would extend merit system protection to a majority of federal employees.
Recent events at the state level, though, have suggested that changes in the rights of federal employees may be on the horizon, and that such changes may become campaign issues sooner rather than later. In the Campaign of 2016, GOP candidates Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Chris Christie have all presided over the curtailment of collective bargaining rights of public sector employees in their states (although in some instances, police officers and firefighters were exempted, and in the case of Ohio, voters repealed those limitations via referendum a short time later). All have promised to bring such changes to the federal workforce as well. Walker, in particular, claims that even after stripping public-sector employees of their collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin, those workers still have better protections than most federal workers. The Government Executive Web site disagrees, suggesting that federal employees already are not free to bargain over wages, because those are set by Congress. They are also not free to strike. Employees in Wisconsin could bargain over wages. Government Executive also points out that despite this, federal employees can and do retain the ability to bargain over working conditions, something that Wisconsin employees are no longer free to do.
At the state level, GOP governors have passed reforms prohibiting unions from automatically collecting dues from employees, which is a blow to the political power of those unions because a portion of those dues goes to political lobbying efforts. At the federal level, employees already are not required to join a union or pay its dues. Thus, civil service reform is likely to focus on reducing civil service job protections, reducing health care costs by increasing employee contributions, and reducing pension benefits. Downsizing the federal workforce and privatizing more of its functions is another dimension of modern-day civil service reform.
See also Campaign of 1876; Right-to-Work Issue
Katz, Eric. “How Scott Walker Could Bust Federal Employee Unions and Cut Fed’s Pay.” Government Executive, July 13, 2015. http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2015/07/how-scott-walker-could-bust-federal-employee-unions-and-cut-feds-pay/117643/. Accessed September 5, 2015.
Mosher, Frederick C. Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.