By Paul Clark
Public safety employees—firefighters, police and other emergency responders—form the backbone of our nation’s post-Sept. 11 homeland security program. Despite the commitment and dedication of these individuals, many are denied a basic workplace right enjoyed by most other employees in this country. The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act now before Congress rectifies this inequity by extending to these employees a voice in their workplace by granting them the right to organize a union and to engage in a limited form of collective bargaining. Congress should move quickly to enact this legislation, not only because it will provide our public safety workers with a right they deserve, but also because giving these employees a greater voice will likely have a positive impact on the safety and security services they provide.
Currently, at least some public safety employees in 29 states are granted the right to form a union and engage in bargaining. Twenty-one states do not allow employees in this category to do so, creating an unequal situation in which some have lesser rights than others based solely on the state in which they happen to serve. Employees providing similar services for the federal government also have bargaining rights, compounding this inequitable situation.
Often overlooked in discussions about bargaining rights is the fact that these rights present a meaningful opportunity for employees to share their collective experience and knowledge about the critical work they do. No one is more dedicated to delivering effective and efficient safety and security services then our nation’s public safety employees. Giving them a real voice in how these services are delivered is likely to result in improvements and efficiencies only those who do this work day in and day out can envision. For example, there is ample evidence the nation’s fire departments are safer and more efficient as a result of the many improvements in staffing, training and equipment resulting from the collective bargaining process that has long been a part of that profession.
The positive effect of unionization, and the opportunity to participate in workplace decisions that comes with it, is borne out by study after study. The greater productivity of unionized workers is a function of several factors. One factor is that unionized jobs, with their better wages and benefits, attract better workers. A related factor is that unionized workplaces have lower rates of turnover than non-union workplaces, saving employers the significant hiring and training costs associated with high turnover. Lower turnover is related to both better compensation and benefits and the greater job satisfaction that comes from having a voice in one’s workplace. Policymakers need to ask themselves what serves America’s homeland security program better—a stable force of experienced, proven, well-trained, long-term public safety employees who are invested in their jobs or one made up of short-term, less experienced, dissatisfied workers ready to leave a better opportunity elsewhere?
It also should be underscored that what the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act proposes is modest and falls far short of granting the same rights all workers in the private sector have had for nearly 75 years. The Act provides minimal rights to organize and bargain, but does not grant the right to strike or provide for binding arbitration. Nothing in the legislation compels local or state governments in any way. Public officials who now make the final decisions about public safety and security matters in their communities retain that power under the Act.
A final issue that has, in the past, concerned legislators is that police, fire, and other emergency services have long been considered matters to be handled at the local and state levels of government, as has the issue of bargaining rights for employees in these occupations. However, Sept. 11 changed this view of the world. Since then, the federal government has taken a much more active role in emergency preparedness. It has established standards, provided increased funding, and worked to provide greater consistency to the provision of safety and security services across the nation. Bringing the minority of states who do not extend public safety employees the right to have a voice in their workplace in line with those that do, would be a significant step toward consistent practices in this area.
In sum, those Americans who work on a daily basis to keep their fellow citizens safe and secure should be granted the minimal rights that the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act would provide. These rights should be granted not only because these individuals deserve them, but because our public safety efforts will benefit when these employees have an opportunity to voice their ideas and concerns. Many public safety employees already have been granted these rights and have used them responsibly. How can we ask these dedicated people to put themselves in harm’s way to protect us, when we do not trust them to participate in the discussion about the work they do?
………….…………………….………….…………..
Paul F. Clark is professor and head of the Department of Labor Studies and Employment Relations at Penn State University.
