Over the past year, the “card check” legislation ironically known as the Employee Free Choice Act (“EFCA”) has garnered a lot of attention. With large Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress and a liberal Democrat in the White House, it seemed only a matter of time until organized labor received a payoff for its nearly $10 million dollar investment in President Obama and EFCA became law. Now, as EFCA languishes in the Senate without sufficient support to withstand a filibuster, it looks like labor may get its payoff with new legislation designed to extend its grip on state and local governments.
On April 12, 2010, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reintroduced the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009 (“PSEECA”). This legislation (S 3194), along with its House companion, HB 413, would require nearly all state and local governments to collectively bargain with public safety employees (policeman, fireman, and emergency medical personnel). To enforce this mandate, the legislation would allow the Federal Labor Relations Authority to establish mandatory collective bargaining rights for all public safety employees, and to preempt the laws of those states which do not meet the FLRA standard. Only political subdivisions with fewer than 5,000 people or fewer than 25 full time employees would be exempt.
The PSEECA would mandate that state and local governments bargain with public safety unions over wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment, such as seniority, leave time, and fitness for duty testing. The Senate legislation exempts from the bargaining obligation pension, health, and retirement benefits; the House version requires bargaining over health benefits, but not pension and retirement. Although the bills make it illegal for public safety employees to strike, they do require that covered jurisdictions have an impasse resolution procedure, such as mediation or arbitration. Employees are also given the right to file lawsuits in state courts to enforce alleged violations of collective bargaining agreements and state labor laws.
The PSEECA is unnecessary legislation. Thirty-five states, as well as the District of Columbia, already have some form of collective bargaining law for public safety employees. Moreover, most states, cities, and towns have a civil service system in place that provides employees with competitive wages and salaries, comprehensive health and retirement benefits, and protection from arbitrary and abusive personnel practices. Indeed, given the difficulty many jurisdictions have recruiting and retaining public safety employees when much of the potential labor pool has been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, market forces require that state and local governments pay their public safety employees competitively.
Not only is the PSEECA unnecessary, it is unwise. The legislation takes a “one size fits all” approach to public sector labor relations, and foists this dictate upon virtually every state and local government in the country. Except for those small jurisdictions which are exempt from coverage, no regard Is paid to a locality’s fiscal resources or the wishes of its local population. Heretofore, employees of state and local governments gained the right to collectively bargain because their elected representatives voted to enact laws giving employees that right. If the PSEECA becomes law, employees will gain that right because Washington said so.
Finally, with state and local governments reeling from the impact of the recession on their revenue streams, the imposition of yet another unfunded mandate by Washington is irresponsible. A recent study by the Cato Institute showed that unionized public sector workers have a 31% advantage in wages and a 68% advantage in benefits over their nonunionized public sector counterparts. While unions may argue that those higher wages and benefits demonstrate the need for this legislation, somebody has to pay that bill. Should state and local taxpayers be forced to pick up that tab simply because policy makers in Washington decided it is appropriate for them to do so?