Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act Of 2007

Floor Speech

PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - July 17, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me this time.

There is no one who appreciates firefighters, police and other public safety personnel more than I do. However, I rise in opposition to H.R. 980 because public sector labor relations has never been and should not be an issue with which Congress meddles. Historically, the terms and conditions of employment for all State and local employees has been an issue decided on the State and local level. This is the way it should be.

Some States, such as my home State of North Carolina, have laws banning monopoly bargaining schemes, while others give unions total control over public sector labor relations. Most States fall somewhere in the middle.

But in a move that chips away at States rights, this bill requires all States to set up systems to impose monopoly bargaining on all public safety workers, in effect nullifying the pre-existing laws of 27 States. A move like this is a virtually unprecedented infringement on States rights.

I want to be perfectly clear. Every worker in America, whether public or private, already has the right to form and join a union. That is not the question here. What the unions are asking for is the power to force their so-called ``representation'' on police and firefighters who do not want it. While some States have made what I view as the mistaken decision of giving unions that kind of power, that is their right under our Federal system.

This bill is flawed in that it takes away the right of States to make the decision on their own. At the end of the day, this issue does not belong in our hands. It should be left to the States. And, frankly, it is not Congress's business.

More than half the States in the country have refused to grant union bosses the complete monopoly control over public safety employment mandated by H.R. 980. They have done this not only as a rightful exercise of their States rights, but in the interest of keeping costs low for their taxpayers.

Studies have shown that monopoly bargaining increases costs for taxpayers. Multiplied across dozens of States, this would impose millions of new costs on taxpayers. State and local governments should have jurisdiction over their own employees, not the Federal Government.

The fact that this bill inserts the Federal Government into an issue that has always been one left to the States should give us pause, and it ought to make us wonder why it is being passed under suspension today. Any bill that makes this sort of dramatic change to public policy should be subject to the regular order of full debate and amendments.

Please, I ask my colleagues to join me in protecting the rights of States and vote against H.R. 980 today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source