Jul 9, 2019
by Ed Lamb
The Association submitted written comments to a U.S. House subcommittee whose members are considering two bills that would require collective bargaining for public sector employees in nearly all localities.
Writing to the Health, Education, Labor & Pension Subcommittee in relation to its June 26, 2019, hearing titled “Standing With Public Servants: Protecting the Right to Organize,” IPMA-HR noted that its primary concern with the legislative proposals
is that they impose a federal mandate on state and local governments. We support collective bargaining when the nature and extent of such activities are determined by state and local governments. There are no studies of which we are aware that would demonstrate that those state and local governments that engage in collective bargaining operate more efficiently and effectively, provide better services to citizens, and have a more engaged and committed workforce. Collective bargaining has always been left up to state and local governments and we believe that they are best positioned to determine the unique needs of their workforces.
Under consideration, though not expected to pass, are the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act (H.R. 3463) and the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (H.R. 1154).
IPMA-HR also questioned the financial and community impacts of mandating collective bargaining:
If as a result of mandatory collective bargaining, state and local governments are required to absorb additional compensation costs, it may result either increased taxes or reductions to vital services. It is also important to recognize that unlike their private sector counterparts many government employees are protected by constitutional due process rights and are covered under civil service laws. These protections far exceed the at will employment status of most private sector employees.
You can read the Association’s full statement by clicking the box below.