National Right-to-Work Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 980) to provide collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material relevant to H.R. 980 into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be sponsor of H.R. 980, along with my good friend from Tennessee, Mr. John Duncan.

H.R. 980 extends to firefighters, police officers, corrections officers and other public safety officers the basic right to discuss workplace issues with their employers. Public safety officers, who risk their lives to protect us, deserve a say in decisions that affect their lives and their livelihood.

We have addressed concerns raised during the hearing held on the legislation in the Education and Labor Committee and strengthened this strongly bipartisan bill. This bipartisanship of this legislation is demonstrated by the 280 cosponsors of this bill and a 42-1 bipartisan vote in favor of this bill during the markup in the Education and Labor Committee.

I would like to thank Chairman Miller, Chairman Andrews and the committee staff for all their support on this important legislation. I wish to also thank Ranking Member McKeon and Ranking Member Kline and their staff for their work with us on this legislation.

I first introduced this legislation more than a decade ago back in 1995. It has been a long journey to today, and this legislation is long overdue for our Nation's public safety employees.

I would also like to thank the groups that we have worked with on this legislation, including, among others, the International Association of Firefighters, the Fraternal Order of Police, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the International Union of Police Associations and the National Association of Police Organizations.

The absence of the right to collectively bargain denies these public servants the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their work and their family. Our firefighters and police officers risk their lives to keep us safe, yet there are some States in this country that deny them the right to discuss workplace issues with their employers, a right most Americans have. At the very least, they should be allowed to negotiate for wages, hours and safe working conditions.

When I was in the State legislature in Michigan, I helped pass legislation that granted all public employees the right to collectively bargain. In Michigan, this has led to a working environment that effectively protects the public and that both employers and employees are proud of.

H.R. 980 would merely create a minimum standard that States have the flexibility to implement, regulate and enforce as they see fit. Many States, such as my own State of Michigan, have laws in place that go well beyond H.R. 980, and these States would not be affected by this legislation. Additionally, this legislation does not allow strikes or lockouts, and it preserves management rights.

Firefighters and police officers are very serious about their commitment to public safety. They deserve the basic right to sit down with their employers and discuss their work conditions.

The reasonableness of this legislation again is demonstrated by the wide bipartisan support it has from its 280 cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Keller for his hard work on this bill. He has made it a joy working on the bill, and I thank him for that.

I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee that had jurisdiction over this bill, such time as he may consume.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank Mr. Duncan for his hard work on this bill. He is, as we all know, a study in civility, and civility certainly helps in this House. He also illustrates that we can sit down in a bipartisan way and seek solutions. I thank him for his work on this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my chairman and the chairman of the full Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers, but I will say this. First of all, this has been a great example of bipartisanship on an issue that very often has divided us. This has brought us together. I think this is a great historical moment. Democrats and Republicans. It was 42-1 in committee, and I think that is something to be said in this body. I think this illustrates that on an issue that very often divides us, labor issues, when it comes to a specific group of these first responders, we can find a way to resolve that division.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 980, which is designed to provide police officers, firefighters and other public safety I officers with basic collective bargaining rights, without undermining State authority or existing State laws. I would first like to commend our distinguished colleague, Mr. Kildee of Michigan, for introducing this important resolution. In light of the post-9/11 era of protecting America from terrorism, in which we are asking our police officers, firefighters, and other public safety officers, to take on more--and more dangerous--responsibilities than they had before, the least we can do is ensure they enjoy the basic right to bargain for better wages and benefits.

State and local public safety officers play an essential role in the efforts of the United States to detect, prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks, and to respond to natural disasters, hazardous materials, and other mass casualty incidents. As the first to arrive on scene, State and local public safety officers must be prepared to protect life and property and to preserve scarce and vital Federal resources, avoid substantial and debilitating interference with interstate and foreign commerce, and to protect the national security of the United States. Public safety employer-employee cooperation is essential in meeting these needs and is, therefore, in the Nation's best interest.

Public safety agencies benefit from constructive relationships with their public safety officers. In fact, local communities also benefit by a more efficient delivery of safety and emergency services. This type of cooperation is promoted by providing public safety employees with the fundamental right to bargain with their employers. Public safety officers deserve the same right to discuss workplace issues with their employer that the Federal Government already grants to most other employees.

The Federal Government needs to encourage conciliation, mediation, and voluntary arbitration to aid and encourage employers and the representatives of their employees to reach and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, hours, and working conditions; and to make all reasonable efforts through negotiation to settle differences by mutual agreement reached through collective bargaining or by such methods as may be provided for in any applicable agreement for the settlement of disputes.

Mr. Speaker, public sector membership gains are important because they demonstrate workers' willingness and ability to organize under conditions of relative management neutrality and non-interference. If the National Labor Relations Act had covered public safety officers 30 years ago--when health care and nonprofit entities were finally covered--it is likely that public sector unionization in the U.S. today would be at least 80 percent, strikingly similar to Canada, Europe, South Africa, Korea, Japan and every other democracy. Instead, the existence or scope of collective bargaining in half the States is still being determined by State legislators or Governors, who favor either no bargaining at all or limited ``meet and discuss'' arrangements.

If collective bargaining in public employment is indeed a public good, we need to focus more on explaining and defending that process, rather than just highlighting the obstacles that individual unions face while trying to boost their own membership. For example, in France, unions count only 10 percent of the workforce as dues-payers but unions negotiate in nearly all industrial sectors based on longstanding support for collective bargaining. Unions actively compete against each other--both for membership and votes for government-mandated workplace committee members open to all workers in the same workplace or firm. But the country's various labor federations then find ways to engage in common contract campaigns with management or the government; as a result, nearly 90 percent of French workers have collective bargaining agreements.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is very balanced. Given the unique responsibilities of the public safety community, the bill specifically outlaws strikes by firefighters, police officers, and other public safety personnel. The bill also does not interfere with State right-to- work laws; preserves the rights of volunteer firefighters; protects all existing certifications, recognitions, elections and collective bargaining agreements; and exempts all States with a State collective bargaining law for public safety officers equal to or greater than the bill's basic minimum standards.

Promoting collective bargaining is even more critical today, because the Nation is in much worse shape than half a century ago. What is the likelihood that we can address America's safety crisis, the collapse of retirement security, the threat of outsourcing, workplace safety and health hazards, or the growing income inequality without far more workers winning the right to bargain? We know the answer, and it is H.R. 980. For these reasons I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of this legislation. I'm proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 980, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007.

Firefighters and police officers put their lives on the line to protect us, and they deserve the right to collectively bargain for safe working conditions and fair wages.

Recent events remind us of their heroism. It was a week ago today that a plane crashed into two homes in Sanford, Florida, just outside my hometown of Orlando, Florida. An off-duty firefighter named Ryan Cooper was nearby when he heard the plane roaring toward the houses. As the airplane smashed the two homes and exploded

them into flames, Ryan Cooper went into action. He rushed into the smoldering homes and brought out a 10-year year-old boy and his father.

Firefighter Ryan Cooper is a true hero. From his hospital bed, where he was being treated for smoke inhalation, Mr. Cooper humbly said that any firefighter would have done the same thing.

Sometimes firefighters pay the ultimate sacrifice. Just last month, nine firefighters in Charleston, South Carolina lost their lives fighting a blaze at a furniture store. These acts of heroism highlight the dangerous nature of public safety officers' jobs.

This legislation gets the ball in the strike zone. On the one hand, it allows firefighters and police officers to collectively bargain for better working conditions and fair wages. On the other hand, it expressly outlaws strikes, and it does not overturn State right-to-work laws. In short, this bill is fair and reasonable and deserves our bipartisan support.

Finally, let me address the main concern raised by some folks about this legislation. They say that this legislation would mandate compulsory unionism in right-to-work States. That simply isn't the case. Section 8, subsections 2 and 3, specifically state that this legislation would not preempt State right-to-work laws. In other words, this legislation allows States to enforce laws that prevent employers and unions from requiring union fees as a condition of employment.

Many people confuse collective bargaining with right to work. The two can coexist. For example, firefighters currently enjoy collective bargaining rights in my home State of Florida, yet Florida is a right- to-work State.

In closing, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for all his hard work on this bill. Mr. Kildee has been a tireless advocate for this legislation.

I would also like to thank the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Miller, and the majority staff for working with the minority to make some changes and improvements in this bill, particularly those that address issues which were raised during consideration of this bill in committee. I would also like to thank the lead Republican cosponsor of this legislation, Mr. Jimmy Duncan from Tennessee, for his work.

I will be voting for H.R. 980 today, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my fellow east Tennessean, Jimmy Duncan, who is the lead Republican and original cosponsor of this legislation and has been a true champion of this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, what is the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I don't believe we have any other speakers.

Let me just begin by saying what this bill does not do to provide some reassurance to some of my Republican colleagues who may be concerned.

This bill expressly does not allow public safety officers to go on strike. This bill does not preempt State right-to-work laws. This bill does not require compulsory unionism. This bill does not require binding arbitration.

I think we all agree that firefighters and police officers risk their lives every single day and they are entitled to make fair wages and have working conditions that are as safe as possible. This legislation is fair and balanced, and that is why it has received such broad bipartisan support.

On the one hand it does allow firefighters and police officers to collectively bargain for better working conditions and fair wages. On the other hand, it expressly outlaws strikes and does not overturn State right-to-work laws. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to do what I am about to do and vote ``yes'' on this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Keller for his strong statement of support of the legislation, Mr. Duncan for his very vigorous advocacy of this bill, Mr. McKeon for his cooperation in getting it here today, obviously Chairman Miller for his leadership, and especially my friend and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

For Mr. Kildee, this has been a 12-year effort, an endurance test, where he has built a coalition of all different kinds of groups across party lines and around the country for a very worthy piece of legislation. So Mr. Speaker, I would commend my good friend for his persistence and congratulate him on a job beautifully done on this legislation.

There is a strong bipartisan consensus for this legislation because it's all about common sense.

Mr. Speaker, most Americans would agree that, almost without exception, every American should have the right to bargain collectively and organize and join or not join a union. This legislation gives that right to our career firefighters, police officers, emergency service personnel, corrections officers, and other public safety officials.

There is a commonsense consensus that because of the significant work that these individuals do, they should not have the right to strike if there is a difficult contract negotiation. Under this bill they do not. There is not a right to strike created by this bill because we recognize the difficulty that strikes would create in the public safety field.

There is a commonsense consensus that there should not be a one-size- fits-all national rule to govern police officers, firefighters and public safety personnel in each of the 50 States and other jurisdictions. That is not what this bill does.

It creates a set of standards. It says that if a State and local jurisdiction meet those standards, then public sector collective bargaining laws stay in place without exception or change. But it says, in those States with the right to bargain collectively, the right to organize, the right to grieve are not fully recognized, where those States do not come up to standard, then there is a new Federal procedure that would guarantee men and women these rights.

The critics of this legislation say it is a threat to public safety. There is not a shred of evidence that that is the case. Not a shred. There is not a difference in crime rates where there is collective bargaining among public safety professionals. There is not a negative difference in absenteeism or other chain-of-command type of issues.

Frankly, we saw a dramatic example of just how wrong that point of view is. On September the 11th, the police officers and firefighters and other public safety personnel in and around New York City, the Port Authority, the New York City Fire Department, the New York City Police Department, those public safety professionals who responded to this great crisis were all unionized. Many of them were in the middle of a difficult contract process where there was strong disagreement between the City of New York and the union as to what to do next.

Not one of those men or women failed to respond nobly and heroically to the crisis this country faced. Not one. When they went up the stairs in the towers as they were about to crumble, no one talked about whether they were in a union or not. When the New York City Fire Department lost more people in 1 day than it previously had done in months and years before that, no one talked about a contract dispute. These individuals responded nobly and heroically. So the suggestion that there is some corrosion of public safety because of unionization is unsupported by the evidence and just flat-out wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Kildee for the strong bipartisan coalition he has built. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in favor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to our friend from Georgia's comment about compulsory unionism and affirm something my friend from Florida said earlier about compulsory unionism.

Section 8(a)(2) of this bill says that nothing in this act or the regulations issued under this act shall be construed to prevent a State from enforcing a State law which prohibits employers and labor organizations from negotiating provisions in a labor agreement that require union membership or payment of union fees as a condition of employment.

This bill expressly preserves the rights of States to maintain so- called right-to-work laws in their State. I want the record to reflect that point, that the gentleman's concerns about the Georgia Constitution are met in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), who very rightly claims east Tennessee as a home also. I am pleased to join with him. I want to commend him for his work on this legislation. I also want to especially commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for their comments about this legislation.

I originally agreed to cosponsor H.R. 980 several years ago, several Congresses ago, at the request of firefighters and police officers from my district. I certainly am not anti-union, nor am I controlled by any union. I strongly believe, though, that no one should be forced to join a union. But I also feel that anyone who chooses to organize or join a labor union should have that right. Employees should be able to make this decision for themselves. In fact, I am a cosponsor, and have been in several Congresses, of H.R. 697, the National Right-to-Work Act. This legislation would prohibit compulsory union membership by applying the right-to-work laws that we have in Tennessee to the entire Nation.

In regard to H.R. 980, I want to emphasize four of the act's main points and then provide some additional details. First, this bill specifically prohibits strikes and lockouts by public safety employees and employers, as has been pointed out by previous speakers.

Second, the bill is not mandatory. It is totally voluntary and, therefore, is a right-to-work bill. Third, it does not federalize or nationalize this aspect of labor relations. The important details would still be governed by State law.

As has been pointed out by some other speakers, several States give their public safety employees more collective bargaining rights than this bill, and it certainly hasn't caused any problems that anyone knows of in those States.

Finally, this bill would simply give firefighters and police officers some, but not all, of the rights enjoyed by other workers. The legislation provides very limited collective bargaining rights and does not give State and local public safety employees the right to strike or numerous other rights that almost all other employees have.

Over the years, Congress has enacted a number of laws granting such rights to other workers and has expanded the scope of collective bargaining laws to govern private sector, nonprofit association, transportation and Federal Government employees.

Since the enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act, State and local public safety employees are the only workers left in America who do not have the right to enter into collective bargaining agreements with their employers. While most States provide collective bargaining rights for these employees, others do not.

When this legislation was being considered originally during the 105th Congress, local firefighters and police officers contacted me directly regarding the bill. Unfortunately, as local elected officials changed, these public safety workers have found that their benefits and wages have sometimes been subject to change, too. These firefighters and police officers feel that this legislation will help them establish consistency in their benefits between the administrations.

Firefighters and police officers have taken an oath to protect public safety. I believe that these individuals should have the opportunity to voice their concerns about issues affecting their livelihood. These brave people risk their lives for public safety every day and should have the same rights as workers in other fields.

Mr. Speaker, let me just mention, as others have, that the Fraternal Order of Police and other police of the National Association of Police Organizations are supporting this bill, and the International Association of Firefighters.

Mr. Speaker, finally, I will close just by emphasizing once again that this legislation would give firefighters and police officers an option to participate in collective bargaining discussions but would not require such action.

I think the good labor unions do not need compulsory unionism agreements. I believe that this is a bill that is encouraging and voluntary, and I urge its support.