Editorials

State and local governments should not be required by Congress to bargain collectively with police, firefighters and emergency medical personnel, but many legislators are pushing hard for such legislation.

Congress is considering the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (S. 2123) which requires state and local governments to bargain collectively with public safety workers.

A lot of concerns have been registered regarding the proposal. It is of dubious constitutionality and would deny local governments the ability to match their policies to local conditions. It also would foster hostile employer-employee relations and would have many unintended consequences, critics contend.

Despite these flaws the legislation has significant support in Congress and could well become law.

In the event Congress does act to deny state and local governments the choice of whether and how to bargain collectively with public safety employees, some specific provisions should be included to make the order less onerous, said James Sherk, a Heritage Foundation analyst.

At the top of the priority list is enforcing the ban on strikes by public safety employees.

Police and firefighter strikes endanger public safety, Sherk pointed out. "Homes should not burn down because the local fire department has gone on strike." Virtually all state and local public safety bargaining laws prohibit strikes for this reason.

Technically, S. 2123 bans public safety employee strikes, but as written the ban is meaningless and will not prevent strikes, Sherk said. And public sector strikes frequently occur despite being against the law.

Public sector unions ignore the law and go on strike because they know they can negotiate an amnesty as part of the contract by which they return to work. Including stiff fines against public safety unions for each day a member is on strike and prohibiting negotiations for amnesty that waives those fines would be essential in national legislation.

A number of other unintended consequences of S. 2123 as written should be guarded against if legislation is adopted.

Conditions under which police officers use deadly force should be excluded from the terms and conditions of employment about which employers must bargain.

Also, merit promotions and disciplinary standards should be excluded from the terms and conditions of employment about which employers must bargain. Excluding how much state and local governments spend on public services from the terms and conditions of employment subject to bargaining also is important.

Ensuring that states are not forced into binding arbitration so that voters' elected representatives have the final say on all spending decisions and requiring that unions certified by the Federal Labor Relations Authority as exclusive bargaining representatives do not discipline or retaliate against part-time and volunteer firefighters are other important provisions needed.

These steps would not make a federal mandate that state and local governments bargain collectively a good policy, but they would reduce the harm that such a policy would cause, Sherk explained.

The concept underlying the Public Safety Employer Employee Cooperation Act is fatally flawed. Congress should not dictate the details of how state and local governments manage their employees.

The only way to ensure legislation like S. 2123 will not burden states and cities with damaging "unintended consequences" is for a majority in Congress to make the sensible decision to reject it.

()