In a veto-proof vote yesterday, America's first responders (police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians) won the right to freely join a union and bargain collectively. The House of Representatives passed a
similar bill last July by a similar margin.
The Secretary of Labor, head of Homeland Security and the Attorney General all sent letters to the Senate telling them that a vote to allow these professionals to unionize is a vote against our nation's security. They argued that union contracts might prevent first responders from doing their jobs. They even argued that terrorist threats might go unanswered because firefighters and police officers would have union rights.
That's an obviously false and despicable thing to say, John Sweeney, the President of the AFL-CIO had
this to say in response:
This claim impugns the integrity of first responders who risked and
sacrificed their lives on 9/11 and in the aftermath of Katrina. Every
one of the 343 firefighters who perished at Ground Zero was a
card-carrying union member.
That about sums it up. The passage of this bill raises an interesting question for public sector union activists though--if public protection workers can unionize, why not other public employees like teachers, state employees, health care workers and municipal employees? There are more than 20 states where public employees have no guaranteed rights to organize and form unions. Will this vote signal a move in the right direction for them to enjoy the basic human right to form a union?