©
After retreating from one misguided intrusion into labor law, congressional Democrats are mustering another clumsy campaign to appease their union donors.
Much like the failed card-check legislation, the latest initiative is an unnecessary federal interference with employment matters. If adopted, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act would require state and local governments to engage in collective bargaining with police officers, deputies, firefighters and emergency medical workers over wages and work conditions.
The proposal does not include binding arbitration, and it prohibits strikes and work slowdowns. Nevertheless, it would bring jarring changes to Virginia and North Carolina, which forbid collective bargaining for all public employees. Congressional overreach under the bill is such that it would even force the 35 states that permit public sector bargaining to rewrite their rules to suit federal preferences.
The motivation behind the bill is obvious and sordid. Unions are a key source of campaign contributions for congressional Democrats, who paid enthusiastic lip-service two years ago to their benefactors' demand for passage of the card-check bill. The legislation was designed to make it easier for unions to organize and recruit new members. The bill failed, in part because it gave federal arbitrators excessive power to impose contracts when labor talks stall.
Democrats are eager to assuage hurt feelings over that retreat before this fall's mid-term elections, when many of the party's freshman members will be fighting for their political lives.
The consolation prize they've come up with is a chance to sign up thousands of new union members in the public sector. According to The Hill, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the Service Employees International Union have already pledged nearly $100 million for fall campaigns. The two unions spent $152 million in the 2008 elections.
The new gift to unions won't invite outrage from business groups, but this time Congress is taking personnel decisions away from people who live in cities and counties across the nation.
If public safety workers feel they deserve higher pay, they should appeal to their bosses, who also happen to be their neighbors. Those police officers and firefighters should also have to justify why they should be treated differently from teachers, trash collectors and mental health workers.
Virginia voters have long supported broad restrictions against unions, but they have not been callous in their treatment of public safety workers. State taxpayers fund supplemental retirement and disability benefits for those public employees in recognition of the hazards they face on the job.
If Congress persists with its latest effort to ingratiate itself with union donors, court challenges are likely and some legal experts predict they will be successful. Cynics will note that a final court ruling can't possibly arrive until after Election Day.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Unions are the reasons that
Unions are the reasons that most companies are moving out of the country. Unions demand high wages for low skills (like auto), free medical, and refuse to contribute anything to their own retirements. Is it any wonder why the USA has such a high trade deficit. The second reason is US tax policy. The cost of compliance with tax rules that read the same way backwards as forwards. My examples are The Ford Plant in Norfolk and International Paper in Franklin. Both union shops. Now gone. I would rather take less money and have a job.
Where is the due diligence
It would be nice if the editorial board foot noted their editorials as to where their information sources came from. In this editorial, it is obvious that they did not contact any of the leaders of the local police or firefighters organizations, who would have been glad to answer their questions.
In Hampton Roads many of the cities permit employee representatives to interact with dept heads and city administration, however, in other areas, particularly in the local smaller cities and counties and in the "valley" dept. heads and city administrators refuse to meet with employees claiming it is "illegal". Only negotiating a contract is. However, because we do not have contracts, even when the city does make promises to correct inequities in their working rules, they can be and are, changed sometimes literally at Tuesday's council meeting. Most labor organizations here agree that having collective bargaining will only negatively impact cities because it will put, in a legal document, the rules, regulations, and promises the cities have currently made to their employees. This would force the cities to follow their own rules. Thus city administrators and their employees will have it
con't
in black and white what their mutually agreed to issues were and a system to fairly adjudicate conflicts
Is this the Pilot Two storie
Is this the Pilot Two storie on two days that are finally hitting back at the bad ideas of the Dems and their speacial intrest groups the unions. If they had their way we would all be working foe the head of SEIU and Accorn wile the have prim rib dinners and we toil away.
Dear 757BVn The same way
Dear 757BVn The same way private sector employees do. If ya don't like it get a job int the dreaded private sector. See what kind of a pension you get there.....States need to retain their independence. The feds are gaining too much control.
Public sector labor law is
Public sector labor law is not the same as private sector labor law. You are trying to make apples and oranges into one fruit.
What Are Your Suggestions for Dealing with Their Issues?
And how would you suggest they solve issues of increasing health care costs that actually reduce disposable income? Or arbitrary and caprious terminations? Or other violations of their civil right's? Or overtime demands? Or unfair employment practices? Or low salaries?