Right to Work Blog

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) usually knows bad legislation when they see it, and the police and firefighter monopoly unionization bill is no exception:

Unions keep losing membership as a share of the national workforce, which explains why organized labor’s main political focus is changing the rules to force more workers into unions. Witness a bill that Senate Democrats are pushing this week to require that hundreds of thousands of local police and firemen submit to collective bargaining.

Under current law, every state has the ability to set policies that govern its public workforce. In some states, police, firefighters and paramedics belong to unions that collectively bargain for their contracts. In others, unions representing public-security workers can bargain over pay, but not over benefits or work rules. And in some others, these workers can choose not to belong to a union.

Democrats want to change this for the entire country. A bill that passed the House last year would make the top officials at local unions the exclusive bargaining agents for public safety officers in every town or city with more than 5,000 people. They would also have the authority to bargain for everything — pay, benefits and work rules. The goal is to give labor the whip hand with local governments, and further coerce nonunion members to join the dues-paying ranks.

Sixteen states have considered legislation like this since 1996 and voted it down. The bill, pushed hardest by the International Association of Fire Fighters, would impose it nationwide, superceding all of these state laws. This arguably violates the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which leaves to the states any powers not specifically given to the federal government — which presumably includes a state’s labor relations. It would also conflict with constitutions in states like Michigan, raising the threat of protracted legal disputes.

As “unfunded” federal mandates go, this is also a doozy. Unions that organize private companies are at least subject to market competition. If they make their employers uncompetitive, the union workers lose their jobs. Public unions have far more clout because there is no competition for government services; they are by law a monopoly. This is especially true of police and firefighters, who can do great harm to public safety if they strike. Unionization gives them enormous clout that drives up costs and eventually the tax burden.

Even Democrats admit this, which is why the bill includes a strike ban. But such prohibitions have never worked. Union officials call strikes anyway, then negotiate amnesty as a condition of ending the work-stoppage. This is what happened in 2005 when New York transit workers broke the law by going on strike and shutting down the city. They paid no price and still got their raise.

The bill’s mandates would also complicate the task of post-9/11 public security. Federal emergency plans rely on the cooperation of local “first-responders,” who need the flexibility to adapt to local problems and circumstances. Work rules negotiated according to national union standards make no sense when the safety needs of New York City are so much different than those in Fargo.

Local officials nationwide are fighting the bill, and the Bush Administration has promised a veto. But the House passed it 314-97, and it may be veto proof. That leaves the Senate, where the bill has 11 Republican co-sponsors, most of whom are up for re-election this fall. Oregon’s Gordon Smith and Minnesota’s Norm Coleman seem to believe that the unions will go easier on them in November if they throw them this concession. Right. If Republicans can’t even oppose monopoly unionization, who needs Republicans?

Despite bipartisan abandonment of taxpayers and workers by members of Congress from both parties who are trying to curry favor with police and fireman unions, the Winston-Salem Journal understands what the real issues are:

The U.S. Congress shouldn’t be meddling with the decisions that city and town leaders must make regarding local government salaries.

Yet that is exactly what Congress is trying to do with legislation that would require all cities and towns of more than 5,000 population to bargain collectively with the leading union that represents public-safety officers — police, firefighters and emergency-service workers.

The bill was moving toward Senate approval last week when Republicans suddenly stopped supporting it. Senate leaders now say they will try to work out a compromise and bring the bill back to the floor.

Although President Bush has promised to veto the bill, it’s entirely possible that there is enough support in Congress to override that veto.

At the very least, an override vote will be close because, for a pro-union measure, the bill has had a good deal of Republican support. (North Carolina’s two senators, Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr, and 5th District Rep. Virginia Foxx have opposed the bill as it has moved through Congress.)

Even if a Bush veto is upheld in Congress, this is not likely to be an issue that will go away. But it should.

The bill is offensive for a number of reasons.

The first and foremost is that it is probably unconstitutional. That annoying 10th Amendment, the one that reserves for the states all powers not explicitly enumerated for the federal government, is still on the books. There’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress the authority to mandate collective bargaining.

In the past, the amendment has been used as the constitutional basis for a lot of bogus arguments — mostly to oppose the civil-rights movement — but this is not such a case. Setting salaries for government workers is a state and local matter.

In North Carolina, public employees do not have the right to bargain collectively. The N.C. State Employees Association has just affiliated itself with a union, but that doesn’t mean it has the right to hold negotiations with the governor and legislators over salaries and benefits. Congress should not come along and decide that it will change the labor structure in this state.

With HR 980, the Congress is also passing a huge unfunded mandate for cities and towns. Collective bargaining would put upward pressure on salaries, and the federal government would not help with them at all. If Congress wants to do something to raise safety officers’ salaries, it should send some money to cities and towns for that purpose.

Congress is meddling here, involving itself in an issue that is best handled by towns, cities and states.

Let’s hope there are enough votes to sustain a Bush veto if the bill passes the Senate. This is an idea best forgotten.

The National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC), for unknown reasons, is carrying water for the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) union hierarchy.

The article cut-and-pasted below usefully points out that H.R. 980, contrary to IAFF propaganda, constituted a serious threat to two-hatters.

However, the article falsely states that S. 2123 “prohibits” anti-volunteer contracts, when, in fact, all it says is that it doesn’t authorize them. Since such contracts are already permitted under a federal court precedent, and S. 2123 will greatly increase IAFF bosses’ power to obtain such contracts, the NVFC is shirking its duty to oppose legislation that threatens its members’ interests.

National Volunteer Fire Council on Article on Collective Bargaining Legislation

Recently, an article by James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation about the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (H.R. 980) has been published in a number of newspapers across the country. The stated goal of H.R. 980 is, “To provide collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions.”

The article cites a provision in H.R. 980 that was designed to protect the right of a career firefighter to volunteer during off-duty hours. Specifically, the provision bars collective bargaining agreements subject to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) from prohibiting employees from volunteering during off-duty hours. The article accurately states that this provision would not protect the vast majority of career firefighters. This is because NLRA applies to nongovernmental employees, while most career firefighters are employed by municipal or county units of government.

The NVFC has worked diligently with Senate staff to develop language that would provide protection to career firefighters who volunteer during off-duty hours. On October 1, the Senate version of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (S. 2123) was introduced and included language in Section 8(a)(5) that states that collective bargaining agreements struck in states affected by the bill cannot include provisions prohibiting employees from volunteering during off-duty hours.

The NVFC does not have a position on S. 2123 but is supportive of the language in Section 8(a)(5) protecting volunteer firefighters. The NVFC never established a position on H.R. 980 but would oppose enactment of legislation expanding collective bargaining rights to career firefighters without also protecting the right of those same firefighters to volunteer during off-duty hours should they choose to do so.

Even the very liberal Globe says the city of Boston shouldn’t have to bargain with firefighter union bosses over random drug testing. Yet right now Congress is considering legislation that would force localities all around the country to recognize firefighter union bosses as firefighters’ monopoly-bargaining agents, and “terms of employment” such as random drug testing would have to be part of the negotiations.

As the Globe opined, “Impaired firefighters pose a serious potential risk to the public and themselves.”

It is unconscionable that Congress is even considering allowing its public safety responsibility to be subject to negotiations with Big Labor self-interest.

Read more about the Police and Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Act here.

The passage of H.R. 980, a bill that would would override state laws and make Big Labor bosses monopoly bargaining agents for local and state police, firefighters, county paramedics, and other public safety officers across America, has a bizarre side-effect — it would ultimately subject tens of thousands of firefighters to harsh new penalties, up to and including termination, for volunteering to put out fires in case of emergencies. No where are the negative consequences of the bill more apparent than in California where hundreds of professional firefighters volunteered on their own time to put out raging brushfires that destroyed hundreds of homes last month.

Writing in the North County Times, Sunana Batra, who lives in Encinitas, California, notes that passage of H.R. 980 by the U.S. Senate:

. . . would mandate unionization of EMTs, firefighters and policemen across America. States and localities who choose not to recognize public sector unions would face a federal override, with Washington setting labor rules. There’s a provision in the bill that opens the door for punishing professional firefighters from “volunteering” with “rival” units. A volunteer unit could be a “rival” to the city or county (unionized) unit.

Two weeks ago, Palomar Mountain was saved by 24 members of the Palomar Mountain Volunteer Fire Department who forced back the flames, preventing most of the mountain’s 300 homes from being lost to the Poomacha fire. They would be considered a “rival” unit to the Escondido Fire Department under the current version of HR 980.

The volunteer fire service is one of the most valuable resources a community can have, according to emergency service personnel. It is those men and women who go into harm’s way to save the lives and properties of countless people each year. According to the National Fire Protection Association, 72 percent of U.S. firefighters are volunteers. Most communities with less than 25,000 residents are protected by volunteer fire departments, anchored by a core of professional firefighters who volunteer during their free time.

Discouraging a highly skilled group of professionals who care about their communities, and have the talent to prevent a vast damage in any way from volunteering their expertise, because it may jeopardize their job, is simply repulsive to this taxpayer.

Columnist Doug Bandow writes that:

Congress should keep its hands off of local labor relations. Cities, counties, and states should be able to organize their emergency services departments as they see fit. Equally important, Washington should leave individual firefighters alone. What is more American than professionals going ahead and volunteering some of their time to save their fellow Americans? That’s something we should encourage, not discourage

Bravo!

According to the Salt Lake [Utah] Tribune:

Dispatch Supervisor Roxann Cheever confirmed Thursday that she circulated an e-mail stating that the city’s public-safety bosses - not just an “overzealous employee,” as a police spokesman previously said - urged dispatchers to fill 50,000 envelopes with pro-bond fliers from the police union.

State law bars city employees from electioneering on the taxpayers’ dime.

Though the city’s “. . . top cop has denied any prior knowledge of dispatchers illegally stuffing envelopes with fliers advocating a $192 million public-safety bond,” . . . “an internal memo suggests the city’s police and fire chiefs not only knew, but actually directed the campaign.”

If true, this is yet one more example of anti-taxpayer collusion between public-safety employers and public-safety union bosses.