Collective Bargaining

Efforts to Pass a Mandatory Collective Bargaining Bill Are Derailed in the Senate

Most Recent Action

Efforts to pass S.3991, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, a bill that TML and NLC have consistently opposed since it was first introduced 15 years ago, came to an abrupt halt this December when senators from both sides of the aisle voted against a "motion to proceed." If adopted into law, the bill would have forced cities and towns to enter into collective bargaining arrangements with their public safety officers regardless of state and local laws.

Led by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), opponents of the bill were able to defeat the motion to proceed, which needed 60 votes to pass, when 42 Republicans and three Democrats voted no. The vote came after a series of strange events unfolded that suggested that under the best of circumstances the bill would have faced difficulties moving forward.

First, 42 Republicans signed a letter stating that they would not vote to proceed with debate on any bill until the Congress passed a new tax bill and a continuing resolution to keep the government operating through 2011.

Second, the bill, which was introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-Nev.) on November 30, differed from its predecessors - H.R. 413, S. 1611, and S. 3194 - in a significant way: it would have allowed states to exempt from collective bargaining sheriffs' deputies in those states that did not require sheriffs to collectively bargain with their deputies.

The change drew strong opposition from the Fraternal Order of Police, one of the lead supporters of previous versions of the bill, because they felt that the revised bill undermined collective bargaining rights for a major segment of the public safety community.

Third, opposition to the bill from public interest groups increased. On the eve of the vote, NLC, working with the NSA, the National Association of Counties and other organizations, issued a strongly worded letter of opposition to the Senate arguing that this bill would undermine state, county, city and town elected officials who must balance the needs of public safety workers and the needs of the citizens they represent permanently and irrevocably.

Ultimately, like all previous versions, this bill would have forced all cities and towns to enter into collective bargaining arrangements with their police officers, firefighters and emergency medical technicians around hours, wages and conditions of employment regardless of state and local laws, something 45 members of the Senate along with NLC found unacceptable.

last updated 2/01/11

Last Spring

In April 2010, it appeared that the Senate was moving one step closer to scheduling a vote on a mandatory collective bargaining bill, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) re-introduced the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009, S. 3194. He did so under a Senate rule that allows the bill to come to the floor in as little as 48 hours after introduction and without committee review. S.3194 is identical to S.1611, which Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) introduced last year, and is nearly identical to H.R. 413, the House version of the bill. The House also seems to be preparing for a vote on mandatory collective bargaining legislation sometime this month with Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the chair of the House Education and Labor Committee and one of the bill's leading advocates, saying he expected H.R.413 to pass Congress in April. If and when both chambers adopt identical bill language, it will be sent to the President who is expected to sign it. Municipal governments continue to oppose this legislation because it would grant the federal government authority over fundamental employment decisions historically reserved to states and local governments. As you know, S.3194 without consideration for state or local laws would:

• Grant every police officer, firefighter and emergency medical technician at the state or local level the right to form and join a labor union;
• Direct local governments to recognize the employees' labor union;
• Require cities and towns to collectively bargain over hours, wages, and the terms and conditions of employment other than pensions;
• Require states and municipal governments to establish an impasse resolution process;
• Require that state courts enforce the rights established by this mandatory collective bargaining bill; and
• Direct every state - even if it currently recognizes employee collective bargaining rights - to conform to federal regulations around mandatory collective bargaining within two years of the bill's effective date and without regard to state or local laws.

Cities' Position: Municipal governments oppose the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009 for the following reasons:

• The federal government should not play a role in making decisions about collective bargaining requirements for states and localities.
• The separation between state and federal authority over collective bargaining was recognized by the Federal government when it adopted the National Labor Relations Act of 1934. That act, specifically exempts states and local governments from coverage.
• Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia have some form of collective bargaining; those states without collective bargaining rights for public sector employees do not because of decisions made by their legislatures and citizens.
• Most states, cities and towns, operate within a civil service system that is designed to provide individuals with wages and salaries appropriate to their profession and seniority, with comprehensive health insurance, and with retirement systems that meet or exceed pensions provided by the federal government. Federally mandated collective bargaining for public safety employees would interfere with these laws.

Background

The state of Tennessee is a right-to-work state. The Tennessee Municipal League supports Tennessee right-to-work laws and opposes any effort to diminish them. Section 14b of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 reaffirmed the right of states to pass right-to-work laws.

Under state right-to-work laws, workers cannot be forced to join, or participate in, a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment. In non-right-to-work states, people entering employment with a unionized business or organization are often required to join the union and pay the associated dues, or pay a union-defined share of the dues if the individual elects to not join the union.

The Tennessee Municipal League and its membership have steadfastly opposed any legislation that formally recognizes public sector unions and requires local governments to collectively bargain.

The public sector’s primary purpose is to improve the quality of life for citizens. The public sector provides essential services such as public safety, utilities and road and bridge maintenance. There is little, if any, competition for providing these services. Elected and appointed officials are motivated to provide these services at a level that all citizens expect. The most effective way of achieving this goal is to maintain an excellent working relationship with well-trained and satisfied public employees and to act as their allies rather than their adversaries.

Action taken in 2008

Federal Mandatory Collective Bargaining Bill Shelved

Senator Alexander's floor remarks

Senator Corker, recent article

Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Enzi (R-WY) met to determine whether they could agree to a plan that would allow the Senate to resume consideration of H.R. 980, a bill that would guarantee collective bargaining for all state and local law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency technicians in cities with a population in excess of 5,000.

The Republicans insisted that the Senate consider the 15 amendments that had been filed, including amendments offered by Senators Alexander and Corker that would have allowed states and local government to opt out of the bill’s requirements. The Democrats were unwilling to agree to the Republicans demands.

While there are enough votes to pass the bill, it appears enough of the 69 Senators that voted for cloture have indicated they will not vote to override the president’s promised veto, unless the amendment are adopted. As such, the Democrats face the prospects of either passing a bill that was certain to die by veto or agreeing to amendments that would substantially alter the affect of the bill as well as reduce any political advantages that might be realized if it were enacted in its current form.

It should be noted that while there are not immediate plans to resume consideration of the bill, future consideration is not precluded.

May 14, 2008 Alert

Presidential Politics Stalls Debate on Mandatory Collective Bargaining Bill

Senators Alexander and Corker offer amendments

Debate over H.R. 980, the mandatory collective bargaining bill, was brought to a grinding halt when Senator Lindsey Graham attempted a procedural ploy to force the Senateto immediatelyconsider the G.I. Bill that he cosponsored with Senator McCain. Democratic leaders immediately called for a conference with the Republican leaders and senate business was suspended for more than four hours while party leaders attempted to negotiate an agreement that would allow the Senate to move forward with its business.

In the end, the leaders agreed to table the amendment brought by Senator Graham. In addition, senators agreed that further consideration of the collective bargaining bill would be delayed until Senators Kennedy and Enzi could negotiate an agreement on how to proceed. Unless or until such agreement is reached, further consideration of H.R. 980 will not take place. In effect, Senator Graham's efforts today, whether intended or not, amounted to a filibuster of H.R. 980.

In the event that the Senate resumes consideration of the collective bargaining bill, the Senate will have to dispose of 16 amendments that have been filed, including amendments offered by both Tennessee senators.

Senator Alexander's amendment provides that no collective bargaining obligation and no contractual obligation may be imposed upon the state, city or county or public safety employer, if the chief elected official or principal administrative officer of a public safety entity certifies the obligation would be contrary to the interest of public safety, would result in any increase in local taxes, or would result in any decrease in the level of public safety or other municipal services.

Senator Corker's amendment provides that a state, municipality or county may opt out of the federal mandate, provided it does so within one year of the date of enactment. (Read an article by the Chattanoogan about Corker's amendment).

State Legislation

SB 1362/ HB 0397 (Haynes/ Jones S.) would change public policy by authorizing local governments to recognize and bargain with police and fire unions. The bill was taken off notice in Senate Commerce, Labor & Agriculture 04/24/2007; the House has taken no action.