S.3194: Attempted Federal takeover of law enforcement

The bill, (Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009) sponsored solely by Harry Reid( D-Nevada ) , isn’t simply a nod to unions. When it is described that way, the implication is that there already exists someone who is being done a favor. In fact, the bill seeks to create new areas of corruption and control and turn the unionization of the public sector into a Federal Force. Merely helping out existing Union Bosses is bad enough. But the legislation sets up a higher authority than the states to dictate not only that the states must unionize their law enforcement, but exactly h0w that will be done.


(a) In General- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Authority shall issue regulations in accordance with the rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b) establishing collective bargaining procedures for employers and public safety officers in States which the Authority has determined, acting pursuant to section 4(a), do not substantially provide for such rights and responsibilities.

i.e. the ‘authority’ will do as it pleases and determine its own jurisdiction ( “which the Authority has determined”) by how it chooses to operate and shall do so immediately after the act is passed. In addition:

    (b) Role of the Federal Labor Relations Authority- The Authority, to the extent provided in this Act and in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Authority, shall–
    • (1) determine the appropriateness of units for labor organization representation;
    • (2) supervise or conduct elections to determine whether a labor organization has been selected as an exclusive representative by a voting majority of the employees in an appropriate unit;
    • (3) resolve issues relating to the duty to bargain in good faith;
    • (4) conduct hearings and resolve complaints of unfair labor practices;
    • (5) resolve exceptions to the awards of arbitrators;
    • (6) protect the right of each employee to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and protect each employee in the exercise of such right; and
    • (7) take such other actions as are necessary and appropriate to effectively administer this Act, including issuing subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary or other evidence from any place in the United States, and administering oaths, taking or ordering the taking of depositions, ordering responses to written interrogatories, and receiving and examining witnesses.
    (c) Enforcement-
    • (1) AUTHORITY TO PETITION COURT- The Authority may petition any United States Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over the parties, or the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to enforce any final orders under this section, and for appropriate temporary relief or a restraining order. Any petition under this section shall be conducted in accordance with subsections (c) and (d) of section 7123 of title 5, United States Code.

The ‘authority’ can use the Court of appeals to dictate policy should its own authority be questioned.

The result would be a literal forced unionization of all of the state and local law enforcement –and that union would be controlled by Federal Authority. It is not enough to simply see that it ‘gives collecting bargaining rights’ to some target class of persons that already have those rights anyway.

As an example, the Arizona law on illegal immigration that the current Administration disagrees with? This law would in effect give the Federal Authority the right to pick and choose which laws its members would be forced to enforce as part of the ‘collective bargaining process’. It is an end run around State’s Rights in the guise of gaining ‘better wages’ for law enforcement.

In fact, union dues can be just as much a tax as anything else and a political weapon as the members are politicized and told who to vote for as blocs. The lack of what could be a large part of the clean-up in the Gulf can be directly traced to unions wanting money ( the Jones Act protects marine unions in American waters..) –no matter the cost. The so-called ‘right-to-be-non-union’ makes divisions within the law enforcement community and penalizes those who don’t go along in a thousand subtle ways.

This bill makes the role of state, city and county law enforcement officers an adversarial one with the tax payer ( implying the tax payer is greedy and would never pay a  just wage to officers without outside pressure)  in addition to being an extra authority over the officers themselves to which they must answer if they want to be a member of even an existing union. It doesn’t just ‘make more unions’; it grabs power over all existing unions of law enforcement officers in that the ‘authority’ defines its own jurisdiction and rules as it pleases.

This bill is socialism on steroids and is being discussed while most attention is on the oil spill and the rest of the inept governance of the present socialist regime. Pray that it never passes and make sure your candidates have as an agenda to overturn most, if not all of what this congress has done and send those who were foremost in these types of power grabs to prison.

Titus 2:11-15  For the grace of God which carries with it salvation for all men has appeared,  teaching us that, having denied impiety and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, and justly, and piously in the present course of things,  awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ;  who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all lawlessness, and purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous for good works.  These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise thee.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

  1. John Sparkelleyski
    July 8, 2010 at 2:21 pm


    As we have been ramping up our efforts to push the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (S. 3194) through the Senate within the next couple of weeks, we have seen and heard misleading and often blatantly wrong facts about the bill being produced by our opponents. Most of these ads, articles and letters claim that the bill would create a “one-size-fit-all” federal labor relations law that takes away states rights, that it would be detrimental to national security, it will bankrupt state and local governments already struggling with budget crises, and finally, the most preposterous fabrication, that under this bill “union-bosses” would be running the local police and fire departments.

    IBPO is working to dispel these rumors and ensure that members of Congress know the truth. We know that public safety is best protected through effective partnerships between the first responders on the front lines and the agencies that employ them. We also know that the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act simply establishes a basic framework for states to use to grant first responders the right to sit down and talk with their employers regarding wages, hours and safe working conditions.

    The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act will guarantee the right of public safety officers to form and join a union, if they choose to, and bargain collectively over hours, wages and working conditions. State right-to-work laws are explicitly protected under this legislation. As we know, public safety collective bargaining and right-to-work CAN coexist. For example, fire fighters and police officers currently enjoy collective bargaining rights in right-to-work states such as Florida, Oklahoma and Idaho.

    The legislation outlaws strikes and does not call for mandatory arbitration. Chiefs, sheriffs and state and local governments will not be forced to accept contract provisions they cannot afford. Additionally, states are given maximum flexibility to craft their own public safety collective bargaining laws, allowing them to tailor their law to meet the needs of their state and local public safety officers and the agencies they serve. The bill even goes as far as to assure that states do not have to bargain over pensions. In fact, many states that currently allow public safety collective bargaining do not allow bargaining over pensions.

    The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act exempts all states with a state collective bargaining law for public safety equal to or greater than the bill’s basic minimum standards. The bill presumes that existing state laws are in compliance with the federal standards established by this Act unless the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) affirmatively finds they are not. The FLRA can only evaluate state laws based on the minimum standards of the bill and nothing else – the FLRA cannot create new requirements and then impose them on states. To further protect state laws, the bill states that the FLRA, when deciding whether a law complies with the Act, must give maximum weight to an agreement between management and labor that a state law complies with the Act.

    IBPO hopes that lawmakers hear and recognize the truth about this important legislation and are not swayed by the deceptive tales of opponents of the bill. State and local public safety officers put their lives on the line every day to serve and protect our nation and its communities. The least we can do is grant them the basic American right to sit down with their employer and discuss how best to do their jobs.

    • christianclarityreview
      July 8, 2010 at 5:21 pm

      That’s an interesting take on forcing unionization via Federal Statue. Law enforcement officers already have the right to join unions. In those situations in which they haven’t, those jobs are local and security related and are not unionized to avoid what this bill seeks to instill: the jeopardy of the public via the internal politics of the union in addition to Federal interference.

      The bill seeks to lay yet another level of authority and bureaucracy on top of law enforcement officers in the guise of granting them a new freedom, which is a classic socialist move. It also would force the public to pay for union offices and jobs as an additional monetary burden ..simply to get to the law enforcement part of the job. In addition, it brings in what is to all, an outside player to their local community that has no business being there: the Federal government. Some ‘board’ in Washington is going to dictate to them, via dictating to those among them that are law enforcement officials exactly how and what they will collectively bargain for if this bill passes.

      Even partial unionizing is unfair to those who do not wish to join a union. So saying Right to Work can co-exist with unions on a equal basis is a lie. The union ends up getting the promotion slots and essentially first dibs on new jobs as part of what was negotiated and the non-unionized worker gets the leftovers. A free turkey for the non-union guys at Thanksgiving is supposed to make up for all that? I have personally been a non-union worker at UPS.

      In addition, the unionized workers get what they call seniority, which basically means that public sector jobs would become life-time appointments, no matter the incompetence or corruption. And again, any disputes in that area are to be settled by Federal Authority? Are you kidding me? Federal bureaucracy, federal incompetence, federal corruption all go into that equation. You act as if when you say the word Federal, everyone ought ideally to smile as if some rescue is underway for an actual problem when in fact all you want is to extend the notion and power of unions via the Fed –at a minimum– while the Fed wants more power for itself. While the two of you might be a perfect fit in your eyes, you are not wanted. It’s not as if no one has ever heard of unions or what goes with unions. Extending that to the public sector would be disaster. The teachers unions are bad enough. The minute they became unions they are liberal and socialist in policy as a matter of historical record.

      The unions are a very large part of why jobs and American production have gone overseas. You drove them overseas by your greed and corruption. In short, the only people to have anything good to say about unions are people in unions and who are getting wealthy at the expense of the people around them. There are certain sections of the country that have historically resisted unions for that very reason. Now you want to say ‘The hell with what they think they want. Let’s force it on them!’. Even if you succeed you lose again.

      The notion of ‘job description’ in a union bascially means no multi-tasking else, in the socialist mindset, that takes away a potential job. If a board is lying in the wrong place on a construction job, a ‘carpenter’ can’t simply pick it up and move it so no one trips over it –that’s the new guy/laborer’s job. You end up with a collective of proud, vain, lazy persons who thinks of themselves as a specialist when in fact they have become a type of robot who only does one behavior for pay. In the public sector, in the ebb and flow of security situations and how fluid those situations are, law enforcement have a reputation for being as flexible as necessary and multi-tasking all the time. Your mindset in them would be its own enemy the public needs protection against.

      In the South in particular, you are seen as both having an effect of dumbing down the worker on the premise he or she gets paid more so who cares and instilling a sense of entitlement. That will be a disaster if law enforcement ever gets your mindset.

      There was a time when unions were necessary. Unions have done some good things. But those things are very few and far between compared to the damage they do overall. Now we’re in the middle of depression, where any jobs are good jobs and here come the unions?! You stifle enterprise because small business doesn’t want you because of the effects you have on labor in addition to the increased cost of labor. Anyone thinking of going into business or growing a business large enough to be seen by unions as a target will wisely go somewhere else than a group of people used to being in unions and they will provide just as ‘legitimate’ a job without you. You know this: so you seek to force unions on every local economy by striking at the public sector because the public sector necessarily comes from the local populace and can’t move away from you.

      This is the type of corruption you spread while calling it progress: you get into local politics in order to advance your own agenda when the premise is that those hired already have jobs and just have some need that is going unfulfilled. You got behind a candidate for police chief and then when it look like he will be the pick of the City Council, you immediately move on to idealizing the need for more officers. 60? 100? More unionized officers? Or non-unionized officers?

      “Chattanooga Mayor Ron Littlefield has appointed Deputy Chief Bobby Dodd—the same officer who topped the recent IBPO poll—to be the city’s new police chief.

      “Bobby Dodd is qualified and ready for the job,” said Phil Grubb, president of IBPO Local 673. “We all hope that we can work together constructively to answer the challenges in front of us.”

      Among those challenges is a staffing shortage; the department is an estimated 60 officers understaffed, with more than 40 reportedly eligible for retirement.’

      Your own post demonstrates, at the least, an attempt to intimidate anyone who disagrees with you by simply calling them a liar. Basically, you demonstrate that you can never learn anything, but are only a zealot for a cause ..for money ..and that is what you wish OUR law enforcement officers to be as coming from among us: people who basically say they can never make a mistake and who shout down as best they can anyone who says anything to the contrary. In addition, you wish to alienate the law enforcement community as an ideological niche, as if they were not us, when of course ‘they’ come from us and are us in every way.

      And while you can say ‘the bill outlaws strikes’, when push comes to shove, strikes take place all over the world even when they are legally prohibited. IBPO ( International Brotherhood of Police Officers) simply wants more power. That is all.

      This bill is socialism plain and simple. If it were not socialist, you wouldn’t have ‘brotherhood’ in your name as false advertising to cover over that you are already a union without this legislation and did not need this legislation to unionize. The freemasonry and Shriners in law enforcement is bad enough. We don’t need more overt unions.

      I thank God this bill, while being on the Senate calendar, seems to have been abandoned. Or it could be that the general thrust is being incorporated into another bill in the classic Democratic style of forcing through what no one wants but a few special interests.

      Proverbs 10:3 Jehovah suffereth not the soul of the righteous man to famish; but he repelleth the craving of the wicked.

      In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

  1. July 15, 2010 at 1:08 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: