Q: Does the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act impose an unfunded mandate on our Nation’s states and cities?
A: No. The legislation simply establishes a process for discussions between public safety officers and their employers. There is nothing in this bill to compel the employer to agree to anything. Fiscal decisions remain firmly the prerogative of the employer. In fact, language in the legislation specifically protects a state or local legislative body’s authority to approve or disapprove funding for any agreement.
Q: In this difficult economic environment, will collective bargaining be a drain on state and local government budgets?
A: No. Collective bargaining brings employers and employees together so they can tackle state and local budget shortfalls in a cooperative fashion. There are countless examples of fire fighters across the country taking cuts in pay and benefits to help municipalities balance their budgets.
Q: Would the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act supersede laws in states where fire fighters already have collective bargaining rights?
A: No. States and localities that already meet or exceed the basic collective bargaining rights established under the legislation are exempt from the legislation. The legislation preserves state collective bargaining laws already on the books. The legislation was carefully crafted to protect existing laws.
Q: Isn’t collective bargaining a state issue? Why does the federal government need to get involved? Why now?
A: Protecting the public safety is a legitimate and important federal responsibility, and enhancing cooperation between public safety employers and employees helps meet that responsibility. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 redefined the federal government’s role in protecting the public safety, and first responders now play an essential role in the nation’s homeland security strategies. Whether it’s responding to an act of terrorism, a hazardous cargo spill on interstate highways, or a natural disaster, the federal government relies on the preparedness and capabilities of local public safety officers. The federal government has a vital interest in promoting cooperation and partnerships between public safety agencies and first responders.
Q: Does the legislation violate states’ rights?
A: No. Under the legislation, each state will maintain and administer its own collective bargaining law. The legislation simply establishes basic minimum collective bargaining principles which state laws must meet.
The concern for states’ rights is a convenient argument. Congress routinely infringes on states’ rights where a federal responsibility is identified. For example, Congress has imposed federal standards in many areas traditionally thought to be in the domain of the states such as: Education (No Child Left Behind Act), Election Reform (Help America Vote Act), etc. The federal government has at least as much at stake in protecting the public safety as it does in these areas.
Q: Would the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act cancel existing collective bargaining agreements?
A. No. The legislation expressly keeps intact all existing collective bargaining agreements or memorandums of understanding approved by any public employee relations board or by any State or locality.
Q: Does the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act undermine state right-to-work laws?
A: No. The legislation absolutely protects state right-to-work laws. The legislation allows states to enforce laws that prevent employers and unions from requiring union fees as a condition of employment. Many people mistakenly believe collective bargaining and right-to-work are mutually exclusive. The two can and do coexist. For example, fire fighters currently enjoy collective bargaining rights in Florida, Oklahoma and Idaho, all of which are right-to-work states. Moreover, all private sector employees in right-to-work states have bargaining rights. Public safety officers in these states deserve the same rights as other workers.
Q. Is the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act an “organizing bill” for the IAFF, designed to boost its membership?
A: No. The vast majority of fire fighters in states without collective bargaining rights are already IAFF members. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that these public safety officers have the same rights as most other workers to talk to their employers. In fact, over 85% of professional fire fighters are IAFF members. The IAFF doesn’t even have an organizing department.
Q: Will the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act be detrimental to volunteer fire houses?
A: No. The legislation does not infringe on the rights of volunteer fire fighters. The Cooperation Act has a provision to protect an employee’s right to engage in part-time employment or volunteer activities. The language in the bill to protect volunteer fire fighters was crafted in concert with the national organization representing volunteer fire fighters.
Q: Is the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act constitutional?
A: The Cooperation Act was carefully drafted to be within Congress’s Article I power to regulate interstate commerce as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Constitutional attorneys have carefully reviewed the legislation to ensure that it passes constitutional muster.
Q: Does the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act mandate binding arbitration?
A: No. The legislation leaves the issue of binding arbitration entirely to the states. Currently, some states allow for binding arbitration, but other states have effective collective bargaining laws that prohibit binding arbitration.
Q: If the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act becomes law, will firefighters and law enforcement officers be more likely to go on strike?
A: No. The legislation expressly outlaws strikes. More importantly, collective bargaining prevents strikes because it provides a forum to address workplace concerns. When public safety officers have a forum to discuss their concerns, differences can be resolved. Strikes are far more likely to occur when public safety officers are restricted from having a forum in which to raise issues.