PDA

View Full Version : Police/Fire/EMS Bargaining act


jrdunkle
10-17-2007, 10:24 PM
October 17th 2007

As some of you may know a bill has passed the house of Representatives titled "Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007" This bill, which I am opposed to was introduced in the House on February 12, 2007 by Reps. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.) and John Duncan (R-Tenn.), would make Big Labor bosses monopoly bargaining agents for local and state police, firefighters, county paramedics, and other public-safety officers in all 50 states.

H.R. 980 would force thousands of state and local governments to recognize union officials as public-safety officers' exclusive bargaining agents.

I am not a union member, but I would not consider myself "Anti-Union." I cannot join the IAFF, since I am a part-time firefighter and also a volunteer in addition to my full time firefighter position. This practice, know as two-hatting, is prohibited according to the IAFF's constitution, “Section 1. Misconduct and Penalties... E. Advocating or encouraging any labor or any other rival organization, or acquiring or maintaining membership in any such organization including volunteer fire departments or associations.” I believe that unions have a place in the fire service, but it should not be forced upon us.

This bill would take away thousands of firefighters and police officers of their freedom to negotiate directly with their employers on their own behalf. This prohibition, enforced by fines and firings for violators, is the foundation of compulsory unionism.

In addition to taking the freedom of public-safety employees, federally imposed monopoly bargaining would cost state and local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually just to pay for the direct costs it would add onto the contract-negotiation process. In addition to this, state laws regarding labor would have to be rewritten costing even more time and money.

Many communities are protected by completely volunteer fire companies, of which many of the volunteers are career firefighters that live in that community. H.R. 980 would endanger public safety by severely decreasing number of volunteer firefighters that currently protect thousands of small communities across America. A fact well understood and opposed by small community mayors and volunteer firefighters alike.

HR 980 gives a false since of security by stating nothing in H.R.980 "shall be construed" to permit "parties subject to the National Labor Relations Act . . . to negotiate provisions that would prohibit an employee from engaging in part-time employment or volunteer activities during off-duty hours." However, State and local public-safety employees are government employees and not subject to the NLRA.

I ask that you would contact the senators that represent your state and encourage them vote nay to this bill when it comes to vote.


Sincerely


Joseph R Dunkle

ffscm72
10-17-2007, 11:39 PM
Wasn't this already posted once?

Res343cue
10-18-2007, 12:31 AM
Yup it was.

Guess what, it doesn't take away any volunteers. Sorry that your panties are in a bunch :rolleyes:

Go find the other thread....

fyrmnk
10-18-2007, 01:21 AM
Yeah, this has been floating around in B.S. editorials. A bunch of crap. Post it elsewhere.

DeputyMarshal
10-18-2007, 06:35 AM
This bill would take away thousands of firefighters and police officers of their freedom to negotiate directly with their employers on their own behalf. This prohibition, enforced by fines and firings for violators, is the foundation of compulsory unionism.

You are seriously misstating the impact of this Bill.

It does not take away anyone's rights nor is there any inclusion of "complusory unionism" involved.

It requires government employers to recognize public safety employee union as bargaining agents only for those groups of public safety employees who have voluntarily chosen to be represented.

In short, if does not require the formation or membership in unions; it just requires governments to recognize them when employees choose to join/create them.

Geinandputitout
10-18-2007, 10:35 AM
October 17th 2007

As some of you may know a bill has passed the house of Representatives titled "Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007" This bill, which I am opposed to was introduced in the House on February 12, 2007 by Reps. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.) and John Duncan (R-Tenn.), would make Big Labor bosses monopoly bargaining agents for local and state police, firefighters, county paramedics, and other public-safety officers in all 50 states.

H.R. 980 would force thousands of state and local governments to recognize union officials as public-safety officers' exclusive bargaining agents.

I am not a union member, but I would not consider myself "Anti-Union." I cannot join the IAFF, since I am a part-time firefighter and also a volunteer in addition to my full time firefighter position. This practice, know as two-hatting, is prohibited according to the IAFF's constitution, “Section 1. Misconduct and Penalties... E. Advocating or encouraging any labor or any other rival organization, or acquiring or maintaining membership in any such organization including volunteer fire departments or associations.” I believe that unions have a place in the fire service, but it should not be forced upon us.

This bill would take away thousands of firefighters and police officers of their freedom to negotiate directly with their employers on their own behalf. This prohibition, enforced by fines and firings for violators, is the foundation of compulsory unionism.

In addition to taking the freedom of public-safety employees, federally imposed monopoly bargaining would cost state and local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually just to pay for the direct costs it would add onto the contract-negotiation process. In addition to this, state laws regarding labor would have to be rewritten costing even more time and money.

Many communities are protected by completely volunteer fire companies, of which many of the volunteers are career firefighters that live in that community. H.R. 980 would endanger public safety by severely decreasing number of volunteer firefighters that currently protect thousands of small communities across America. A fact well understood and opposed by small community mayors and volunteer firefighters alike.

HR 980 gives a false since of security by stating nothing in H.R.980 "shall be construed" to permit "parties subject to the National Labor Relations Act . . . to negotiate provisions that would prohibit an employee from engaging in part-time employment or volunteer activities during off-duty hours." However, State and local public-safety employees are government employees and not subject to the NLRA.

I ask that you would contact the senators that represent your state and encourage them vote nay to this bill when it comes to vote.


Sincerely


Joseph R Dunkle

Where do you come up with this bs? Do you work for the National Right to work foundation? I think you should reevaluate who writes your form letters.

HotTrotter
10-18-2007, 11:48 AM
From HR980

(a) Construction- Nothing in this Act or the regulations issued under this Act shall be construed--
(4) to permit parties subject to the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) and the regulations under such Act to negotiate provisions that would prohibit an employee from engaging in part-time employment or volunteer activities during off-duty hours;

I wonder why they didn't cover full time employment as well.

Of course, I can't tell if they are prohibiting the activity or not.

My opinion, there should be nothing that dictates what you do outside of your workplace.