In Opposition to H.R. 980 Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007

Floor Speech

IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 980 PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION ACT OF 2007 -- (Extensions of Remarks - July 27, 2007)

* Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the first responders of our Nation deserve our great respect and admiration for their commitment to keep the public safe from harm. They play a vital role in securing our communities against our time's many threats to peace. I fully support our public-safety community in its increasingly complex and difficult task.

* The measure before the House, H.R. 980, would allow the Federal Government to assert itself on an issue that has typically been left to State legislatures. H.R. 980 would establish a national system of collective bargaining for most of the Nation's public safety officers, including but not limited to, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other emergency service personnel (such as EMTs and other first responders) employed by State and local Governments.

* This legislation does not pass good policy muster for a variety of reasons. Foremost among those reasons is its utter disregard for the 10th Amendment rights of States. My home State of North Carolina has exercised its State rights and chosen to prohibit collective bargaining rights. It has been a Right-to-Work State since 1947. Under the provisions of this bill, North Carolina could no longer exercise its constitutional rights, but would be forced to comply with unprecedented Federal mandates.

* The legislation also does not include protection for secret ballot elections. Public-safety workers would be at the whims of strong-arming union-boss tactics. But despite the threat to the interests of States and their public safety workers and the fact that it supersedes State and local authority, this bill was pushed through the House under a suspension rule.

* Fortunately, there is a decent chance this law will be ruled unconstitutional because of the Federal Government's overstepping its bounds and imposing a Federal mandate on States. This bill would preempt State authority to regulate the collective bargaining rights of its State and local public safety employees. While the bill asserts that States would not be preempted, this assertion only applies to States with comparable or greater rights than those required under this legislation. In other words, if a State doesn't match or exceed what the Federal Government wants, it is preempted.

* H.R. 980 infringes on State rights and it expands the Federal Government's scope and role by creating an onerous national standard for public safety employee labor laws. But there is no real case for enacting this bill--currently 48 States have labor laws governing these workers and 29 of those States would already meet the proposed standard. The dark side of these 29 States that meet the standard is the 21 States that would have to create new labor laws or face Federal Government intervention of imposed regulations.

* Moving away from how this affects States, H.R. 980 does not provide protections for individual public-safety employees who do not want to unionize--especially in States that do not currently allow such unionization. States often have good reason to prohibit such unionization of public-sector employees. Collective bargaining and the process that surrounds it can cause strife in the workplace that might otherwise undermine Americans' public safety. Although current law already prohibits strikes in the public sector, such prohibition has at times been violated during the collective bargaining process.

* North Carolina is one of the States that has laws barring monopoly collective bargaining for public safety employees. It would be significantly affected by this bill's mandates. Since North Carolina's laws do not meet these new burdensome standards, the State is faced with two choices: enact or amend its laws that conform to the Federal standard; or have Federal labor law, administered by the Federal Government, govern the rights of its State and local firefighters and public safety officers.

* With such an imposition, Democrats are empowering the Federal Government to supersede State's rights and set a minimum standard that must be observed, in an area where 48 States already have some form of allowance present. We do not need to expand the Federal role in this issue and it is unclear whether or not this would be constitutional under the Tenth Amendment.

* For decades, States have exercised their constitutional right to make public-sector employment laws that each State found reasonable. With the passage of H.R. 980, the States would be forced to comply with Federal standards that might not reflect the values of the State and its citizens. This is just one more example of how the majority insists on inserting the Federal Government into more and more aspects of our lives. I believe a no vote on this bill is a protest against continued intrusion into issues best left to States.

Source