By By JONATHAN CLAYBORNE
Staff Writ
The debate over whether the U.S. Senate should move forward with an amendment that would grant collective-bargaining rights to first responders appears to mirror the national dialogue — or argument — over the limits of the federal government’s jurisdiction in local matters.
The issue of states’ rights versus federal intervention loomed large in conversations about health-care reform, and this underlying tension is no less evident now as a leading senator seeks to expand the bargaining rights of law-enforcement and emergency personnel.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has introduced an amendment to a supplemental appropriations bill that apparently would extend collective-bargaining rights to everyone from sheriff’s deputies to emergency-medical technicians.
The amendment, if successful, would change the game for public employees looking for a better deal at the state- and local-government tables.
According to a statement from Reid’s office, the measure “would ensure that police officers, firefighters and emergency medical services personnel enjoy the same job protections as many other workers by promoting cooperation between them and the public-safety agencies that employ them.”
It would “provide a path for first responders to seek union representation and to bargain for wages and working conditions, as well as establish a mechanism to resolve employee disputes.”
The concept, if executed, would not “interfere with state laws that already protect first responders’ labor rights” and would prohibit strikes, the statement reads.
Reid’s amendment isn’t a new idea, and the collective-bargaining issue has been debated by Congress in the past.
But opponents say that a federal mandate for collective bargaining would be too costly to local governments, especially in this difficult economic climate.
Opponents also say first responders could organize in ways not intended by Reid and the amendment’s backers, like taking consecutive “blue-flu” sick days in a bid for higher pay.
“As a department head, one of my many concerns is that North Carolina specifically prohibits collective bargaining at the state and local level,” said Washington police Chief Mick Reed. “I always get concerned when the federal government seeks to override a law that has been passed and has been held to be constitutional by the federal courts.”
Reed said local elected officials “very strongly support our public-safety employees.”
He wondered aloud what would stop other public-sector employees from arguing for the same tools that first responders could get.
“Call it a slippery slope, call it Uncle Sam coming in and taking over,” he said.
And North Carolina’s two senators oppose what Reid would do — or at least the way he would do it.
“This amendment would mandate that states allow collective bargaining for state government employees,” Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., said in a written statement. “This is a states’ rights issue, and I believe it should be left up to the states to decide.”
David Ward, a spokesman for Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., contributed the following: “Every community is different, and Senator Burr supports letting the communities make decisions of this nature in order to best address their needs and circumstances. The Senator has a long history of supporting professional and volunteer firefighters, but he is concerned about the imposition of new unfunded mandates on local governments and communities in North Carolina. Senator Burr believes that local governments should have the flexibility they need to protect public safety.”
Local governments have enlisted the help of their lobbying organizations to oppose the amendment.
Among the entities voicing opposition are the National Association of Counties and the N.C. Association of County Commissioners.
Despite their intensity, these lobbying attempts may not be necessary.
A congressional source who did not wish to be quoted directly supplied background information about the Reid amendment.
According to the source, Reid filed for cloture to end debate on the supplemental-funding bill to which the amendment was attached.
Having done that, the senator basically stopped the possibility of the amendment’s being considered, the source said.
If the issue came to the fore now, it probably wouldn’t be found germane, he said, adding that senators have come to an agreement on a small list of amendments and that Reid’s amendment isn’t on that list.
Media reports have put forward the notion that Reid might not have the votes he needs to push the item ahead.
The source said it’s fair to say that the debate over the amendment echoes the health-care fight in that it relates to how much influence the federal government should have over states and citizens.
“It ought to be the people that feel it the most who get to decide,” he said.