See submitted remarks.

See attached.

Comments Document

See attachment.

My name is Donyale Hall. I am a U.S. Air Force Gulf War–era disabled veteran, a military mother, and a Delaware councilwoman. I strongly support HB 398. My father grew up in rural Floyd County, Virginia, joined the Air Force at 18, and served this country for 26 years, retiring as a master sergeant. After his service, he spent years trying to secure the VA disability benefits he earned. He never succeeded. He passed away while still fighting the system. That experience is not unique. The VA claims process is complex and unforgiving. A single mistake can lead to denial, and appeals can take years. Veterans know this. That is why many seek professional help to get their claims right the first time. HB 398 protects veterans’ right to choose who helps them. Professional benefits consultants often provide critical assistance, especially for disabled, rural, and elderly veterans who cannot navigate the system alone. Many of these professionals are veterans themselves, trained to guide others through a high-stakes process. Eliminating these options does not protect veterans. It leaves them with fewer resources, longer delays, and higher denial rates. Volunteers and VSOs do important work, but they are often overburdened and not accessible to every veteran who needs help. HB 398 takes the right approach. It preserves access, respects veteran autonomy, and allows accountability without punishing veterans who simply want help securing the benefits they earned. Virginia should not make the VA claims process harder for veterans. HB 398 makes it fairer. I respectfully urge your support.

Donyale Hall is a businesswoman, mother and a Gulf War Era Veteran of the United States Air Force. She moved to Dover in 1973, when her father was assigned to Dover Air Force Base. Donyale is a 1987 graduate of Caesar Rodney High School and has raised her own family here. Of her ten children, five are CR graduates. Three are graduates of the Early College High School at Delaware State University. The youngest two are currently middle schoolers. Two sons proudly carry on the family legacy of military service as members of the United States Air Force and Navy. As a child, Donyale had dreams of becoming an architect. The idea of designing and building things has always had great appeal to her. Although her education and career path took Donyale in an entirely different direction, her creative and problem-solving approach to life served her well, “building” in other meaningful ways.

I am writing to discuss HB 398 the claim sharks bill. Many politicians in public proudly proclaim how much they love veterans, and how they would do anything for our beloved veterans. Your job as legislators is to protect those who are unable to protect themselves and look out for the best interest's of your constituents. This is a time for you to prove that your words are truly actionable and not just words. Claim sharks like their compadres in the ocean, are predators. They prey on the weak and the vulnerable. Many veterans do not have the ability to understand and navigate the complex VA disability system. It is confusing and some cases contradictory. That is why the state of Virginia and national veterans organizations have accredited claims professional who have the ability and training to navigate this system for the veteran and do not charge a fee for their services. To allow claim sharks to feast on veterans who believe they have no choice to pay absurd sums and surrender hard earned relief for injuries received in war, are not only cowardly, but a stain on our state for allowing it to happen. If you truly care about veterans and are not just posturing for votes, you will ban claim sharks in Virginia and do your duty to protect those who need protecting. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. LTC(R) Mark P. Maggio SR Vice Commander, Dept of Virginia Veterans of Foreign Wars.

I rise against HB 398. Passing this bill, will go against everything we represent as a Veteran Service Organization, who Look out for Veterans, and their Families. Virginia’s veterans have long relied on accredited Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) to assist them in navigating the complex landscape of VA claims and benefits. These organizations, staffed by trained, accredited representatives, provide their services at no cost to the veteran. Their mission is rooted in advocacy, accuracy, and protection of veterans’ rights. HB-398 in the Commonwealth has raised serious concerns among veteran advocates, service organizations, and community leaders. The bill in question opens the door for unaccredited, for‑profit companies, often referred to as claim sharks, to operate more freely in Virginia. These companies charge veterans substantial fees to access services that are otherwise free and federally protected. Unaccredited Actors Undermine Federal Protections. Federal law explicitly limits who may legally assist veterans with filing, preparing, or managing VA claims. Accreditation exists to ensure veterans receive qualified, ethical, and regulated representation. Unaccredited entities bypass these safeguards, creating a system where veterans may unknowingly entrust their benefits to individuals or companies without oversight, accountability, or standards of care. Veterans Could Lose $7,500–$20,000 in Earned Benefits. VSOs provide representation at no cost. Claim sharks, by contrast, typically charge a percentage of a veteran’s past‑due benefits, often amounting to $7,500 to $20,000, money that rightfully belongs to the veteran. These fees can cause severe financial strain, especially for veterans with disabilities or those on fixed incomes. Misrepresentation Risks Are High. VSOs undergo rigorous training and are held to strict federal standards. Where in contrast for‑profit entities: Are not accredited, are not recognized by the VA, often use misleading marketing and frequently provide inaccurate or incomplete claims guidance. Virginia is home to one of the largest concentrations of veterans in the country, including tens of thousands in the Hampton Roads region. Any legislation that eases access for unregulated companies poses a disproportionate risk to a population that already faces unique bureaucratic and health‑related challenges. Local VSOs fear that the bill inadvertently legitimizes companies that exploit veterans financially, provide substandard guidance, and erode the integrity of the accredited claims process. Veteran leaders have voiced concern that many service members may not realize they are paying for something they can receive, legally and correctly, for free. Virginia’s veterans deserve legislation that strengthens, not weakens, the systems in place to safeguard their benefits. Policymakers, veterans, and community organizations should work together to: promote accredited VSOs and educate veterans about free resources, combat deceptive practices by for‑profit claims companies, ensure state laws do not contradict federal veteran protections, and advocate for strict standards to prevent exploitation. Protecting veterans means ensuring they are not financially preyed upon while seeking the benefits they earned through service to our country. Thank you Troy Wagers Commander Dept. Of Virginia Dist 2

Respected Delegates, Thank you for your time today. I am submitting comment on HB 569 Public works contracts; localities to ensure bid specifications are prevailing wage rate. I am Director of Community Development for the City of Buena Vista, one of the state’s smallest cities. I routinely work with grants for construction and public works as defined in this bill. At a time when Buena Vista’s infrastructure is in desperate need of deferred maintenance and reconstruction, and construction costs have increased far faster than inflation, this proposal will significantly drive up costs for essential public works. It burdens construction projects with unrelated socio-economic policy goals, ballooning the cost to our taxpayers of actually getting things done. The requirements of the bill will do two things: increase costs and risks for contractors (employers), and increase the costs and risks for local governments. Costs and risks for contractors: • Direct administrative cost to contractors is added to bottom line of bid, as well as cost of liability risk for noncompliance • Some contractors do not have experience or capacity to handle prevailing wage compliance, resulting in fewer bidders for City projects • § 2.2-4321.3 paragraph H appears to require all subcontractors be registered with eVA, which adds to the complexity and cost for primes • § 2.2-4321.3 paragraph K requires that all employees working on a public contract have at least 4 years of work experience, or be part of a registered apprenticeship. How is this realistic? This penalizes employers and it penalizes young workers trying to enter the field who are not part of a registered apprenticeship. Costs and risks for localities: • Direct administrative cost of more complex procurement documents and process, including wage determinations, and auditing contracted employers. The City of Buena Vista does not currently have staff who are trained in Davis-Bacon wage rule compliance, nor do we have staff with time to perform this compliance work. • Fewer bidders for projects. Buena Vista has direct experience on several contracts within the last 5 years – Federal contracting provisions like Davis-Bacon have driven away contractors interested in performing work and measurably increased the cost of awarded contract. • The City bears some liability for improperly advertised or non-compliant projects I urge Committee members to reject this bill entirely. Thank you.

As a constituent that moved to Virginia from the Midwest where the cost of living is much lower than in Fredericksburg/Spotsylvania, disclosure of prior earning affected my starting wage compared with my peers. Having wages based on prior wages creates a significant difference in lifetime earnings throughout your career. This also affects earners moving in from areas where cost of living and wages are much higher through lost employment opportunities due to the supposition that the worker will not accept a lower wage or that they will leave. By offering a pay range for the position, each business can maintain their competitiveness while hiring workers that understand the compensation they will receive.

HB675 is vital. With our immigrant neighbors under such threat, it is unconscionable that some are able to exploit them further. This law fills an important gap in protecting labor rights and helps us all. And we know from Washington State that it works! Please vote yes for HB 675.

Faculty collective bargaining is a means to protect academic freedom, institutions of faculty governance, fair procedures for resolving grievances, the economic well-being of faculty and other academic professionals, and the advancement of higher education as a public good. I strongly support the bill as a means to provide hard working educational employees the dignity and quality of life all Americans deserve. It is through their tireless work that our universities operate and provide the next generation the skills, knowledge, and opportunities to succeed. For all of their hard work and determination, it is fair they be provided equal rights as those of other sectors.

I support collective bargaining, speaking on behalf of myself. Faculty collective bargaining is a means to protect academic freedom, institutions of faculty governance, fair procedures for resolving grievances, the economic well-being of faculty and other academic professionals, and the advancement of higher education as a public good.

Like many people at the university where I work, my job entails doing the work of 2-3 people, but I am paid far less than what is considered a living wage for even one person. I love the work I do, but its quality suffers immensely under this constellation of poor pay and difficult working conditions. In fact, I have had to turn down career-defining research and consulting opportunities, which would have meaningfully bolstered my university's reputation and prestige, because I simply do not have the resources to handle more than the bare minimum needed to keep my job and take care of myself—even though, on paper, I supposedly don't work full-time. I support the passage of HB1263 because it would give me and my colleagues much-needed power to advocate for ourselves and the students about whom we care deeply. If you wish to unleash the full power of VA public universities to be public goods for the Commonwealth, the country, and the world, then pass this bill and give a voice to the people who are the very source of that power.

As Adjunct Faculty, holding a terminal degree in my field, my labor is exploited at a Virginia university. I have no health coverage, no dental coverage, no job security. With Collective Bargaining, I have the opportunity to, at minimum, have my basic needs fulfilled. It is difficult to work for an employer and provide their clients - students - with expertise and skill building that they need in their careers while knowing that I may not be able to purchase groceries for my family; while knowing that the students whom are investing in their careers will potentially land in the Virginia workforce under the same precarious job environment. I need Collective Bargaining. Future workers need Collective Bargaining.

The fundamental Constitutional rights of academic freedom and free speech on campus are under attack and must be defended. Faculty collective bargaining is a means to protect academic freedom. Collective bargaining can ensure that faculty are involved in governance of our higher education institutions, fair procedures for resolving grievances are followed, the economic well-being of faculty and other academic professionals is guaranteed, and higher education as a public good is assured. To defend these basic rights in Virginia, please support HB1263.

As a faculty member and advocate for better working conditions for all workers serving higher education institutions, I am writing in support of HB1263. We need this bill! Daily, I work with members of my community who face labor challenges, including stagnant wages, contracts that are offered, signed, and then withdrawn days before classes start, and administrators who are not upholding contracts and their commitments to workers. Faculty collective bargaining is a means to protect academic freedom, institutions of faculty governance, fair procedures for resolving grievances, the economic well-being of faculty and other academic professionals, and the advancement of higher education as a public good. Thank you for your work to advance worker rights in higher education!

Speaking for myself and not my institution:As a faculty member at a Virginia urban public university, I can see how faculty collective bargaining would help protect faculty members' academic freedom and institutions of faculty governance. It would insure fair and consistent (that is, the same across all institutions) procedures for resolving grievances, as well as the economic well-being of ALL faculty and other academic professionals who are Virginia state employees. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it would promote the advancement of higher education as a public good: working together and with the legislature we faculty can help restore public faith in the role played by our institution in sustaining this Commonwealth as a premier place to live and work. But we can only do this if our institutions authentically and transparently enfranchise and work with us as full partners.

As an instructor for three decades at Virginia public colleges and universities, first as an adjunct and for the past 25 years as a full-time non-tenure-track faculty member (commenting here in my capacity as an individual citizen), I strongly support collective bargaining rights for faculty. As faculty striving to better our working conditions often point out, student learning conditions are shaped in large part by faculty working conditions. This is especially true at a time when the majority of faculty, especially faculty teaching introductory courses, are contingent: part-time and/or non tenure track. Our precarious employment status can make it difficult to advocate not only for ourselves, but also for our students. Collective bargaining would strengthen our ongoing effort to make sure that appropriate resources are invested in our institutions’ teaching mission. As a church member who often takes communion to elderly and disabled church members unable to travel to services, I also strongly support collective bargaining for individual home care providers. These dedicated workers provide essential services to some of our most vulnerable citizens, and they, too, need the ability to advocate for working conditions that will allow them to do their work as well as possible.

Collective bargaining by public employees strengthens not only the workforce but also the quality of public services. Collective bargaining gives essential workers such as teachers, firefighters, nurses, and other public servants a fair, structured way to negotiate wages, benefits, and working conditions, leading to more stable and professional workplaces. When employees have a meaningful voice, not only morale improves and turnover declines but also public institutions have a better ability to retain experienced workers who understand the needs of their communities. Hence, collective bargaining strengthens also public agencies as employers. Rather than reducing efficiency, collective bargaining promotes transparency and cooperation, and as a result helps public agencies attract skilled professionals, and deliver reliable, high-quality services to the public. Many states already recognize collective bargaining rights for public employees and have shown that these protections can coexist with effective government. States such as California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and Hawaii grant broad collective bargaining rights to public-sector workers, including teachers, nurses, and other state and local employees. These examples demonstrate that collective bargaining is a well-established practice across the country and can support stable public workforces while maintaining high-quality public services.

I currently work as a public school superintendent in Virginia after having previously served in the same role in West Virginia, where collective bargaining has been in place in some way, shape or form for decades. There are a number of reasons why public schools in Virginia perform significantly higher than those in West Virginia but one of the primary ones is that during the years when money wasn't available for the bargaining process , the schools there negotiated away administrative oversight and as a result created an entire system that was too rigid to allow for any meaningful change even when systems were failing on a massive scale. I realize that we have school divisions in Virginia that have already adopted collective bargaining policies and negotiated contracts and believe they are working well. However, the school funding model in Virginia already creates tense relationships between elected School Boards and Boards of Supervisors/City Councils. Forcing small rural school divisions, that are already strapped for cash, to have to engage with their local funding body in the collective bargaining process is not going to do anything to help improve the levels of trust and collegiality in our communities. Allowing collective bargaining to remain at the discretion of the locally elected boards would definley help those of us who work each day to keep public education politically neutral and make schooling a positive experience for our students and their families. Thank you.

Adjunct faculty at George Mason University earn as little as $3,477 for teaching a 3-credit course. Teaching such a course demands somewhere between 150 and 200 hours of labor, meaning that some college faculty are being paid less than $20 per hour. Across the Potomac, unionized adjuncts at George Washington University have negotiated a minimum of $4,509, nearly 30 percent more than their counterparts at Mason. (GW Hatchet, August 18, 2025) Collective bargaining could allow adjunct faculty at Mason and other public universities in Virginia to achieve parity with their colleagues at peer institutions and earn something closer to the amount due to them for educating the students of the Commonwealth.

As a graduate student and worker at a Virginia university, I support HB1263 as I believe that collective bargaining is a means to protect academic freedom, institutions of faculty governance, fair procedures for resolving grievances, the economic well-being of faculty and other academic professionals, and the advancement of higher education as a public good.

Please support Delegate Kathy Tran's public sector collective bargaining bill (HB 1263) https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB1263. I know that faculty collective bargaining is a means to protect academic freedom, protection of the curriculum, fair procedures for resolving grievances, the economic well-being of faculty and other academic professionals, and the advancement of higher education as a public good. Collective bargaining is a known and effective way to protect academic freedom which is essential to democracy. Faculty in Virginia are afraid to teach students the truth, facts, and how to think for themselves because they know bad faith actors are looking for ways to attack and try to get us fired for simply helping students understand data and ask critical questions. Also, we lose faculty to states that do have collective bargaining because scholars know their teaching and innovative scholarship will be protected. That leads to an expertise drain on Virginia.

Please support Delegate Kathy Tran's public sector collective bargaining bill (HB 1263) https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB1263. As an academic advisor in Virginia serving our students, I know that faculty collective bargaining is a means to protect academic freedom, protection of the curriculum, fair procedures for resolving grievances, the economic well-being of faculty and other academic professionals, and the advancement of higher education as a public good. Collective bargaining is a known and effective way to protect academic freedom which is essential to democracy. My faculty colleagues are afraid to teach students the truth, facts, and how to think for themselves because they know bad faith actors are looking for ways to attack and try to get us fired for simply helping students understand data and ask critical questions. Also, we lose faculty to states that do have collective bargaining because scholars know their teaching and innovative scholarship will be protected. That leads to an expertise drain on Virginia.

Please support Delegate Kathy Tran's public sector collective bargaining bill (HB 1263) https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB1263. As a faculty member in Virginia serving our students, I know that faculty collective bargaining is a means to protect academic freedom, protection of the curriculum, fair procedures for resolving grievances, the economic well-being of faculty and other academic professionals, and the advancement of higher education as a public good. Collective bargaining is a known and effective way to protect academic freedom which is essential to democracy. My faculty colleagues are afraid to teach students the truth, facts, and how to think for themselves because they know bad faith actors are looking for ways to attack and try to get us fired for simply helping students understand data and ask critical questions. Also, we lose faculty to states that do have collective bargaining because scholars know their teaching and innovative scholarship will be protected. That leads to an expertise drain on Virginia.

To: Members of the House Committee on Labor and Commerce Dear Members of the Committee, I am writing to express my strong support for HB 1263, legislation that would repeal the prohibition on collective bargaining for public employees and establish the Public Employee Relations Board. As an educator and higher-education leader committed to the long-term success of Virginia’s public institutions, I believe this bill represents a critical investment in student success and the strength of higher education as a public good. At the core of a high-quality educational system is a stable, supported, and professionally respected workforce. HB 1263 provides a clear and balanced framework that advances this goal while strengthening outcomes for students and the Commonwealth as a whole. Student Success: When faculty and staff are supported by fair procedures and workplace stability, they are better positioned to focus fully on teaching, mentoring, and student engagement. This stability directly contributes to consistent instruction, stronger academic support, and improved learning environments. Academic Freedom and Shared Governance: Collective bargaining plays a vital role in safeguarding academic freedom and reinforcing shared governance. It ensures educators can teach, research, and participate in institutional decision-making without fear of arbitrary retaliation, while giving those closest to the classroom a protected voice in shaping academic policy. Workforce Stability and Retention: Virginia’s ability to attract and retain highly qualified faculty and staff depends on offering competitive, transparent, and fair working conditions. By allowing the negotiation of wages, hours, and terms of employment, HB 1263 helps prevent workforce attrition and strengthens institutional continuity. Commitment to the Public Good: Public colleges and universities are foundational to Virginia’s economic vitality and civic life. Protecting the rights of those who serve within these institutions is not merely a matter of labor, it is a commitment to the quality, integrity, and sustainability of public services for all Virginians. Strong faculty and staff protections are inseparable from the value of the degrees our students earn. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to support HB 1263 and help ensure that Virginia’s public institutions remain fair, effective, and focused on educational excellence. Sincerely, Dirk Burruss Professor, Reynolds Community College

Faculty collective bargaining is a means to protect academic freedom, institutions of faculty governance, fair procedures for resolving grievances, the economic well-being of faculty and other academic professionals, and the advancement of higher education as a public good.

Faculty collective bargaining is a means to protect academic freedom, institutions of faculty governance, fair procedures for resolving grievances, the economic well-being of faculty and other academic professionals, and the advancement of higher education as a public good.

Collective bargaining for our state university employees is a means to ensure Virginia continues to be a great place to work, protects academic freedom, strengthens institutions of faculty governance, helps to establish fair procedures for resolving grievances, and ensures the economic well-being of the staff and faculty at the Commonwealth's institutions of higher education.

Faculty collective bargaining is a means to protect academic freedom, institutions of faculty governance, fair procedures for resolving grievances, the economic well-being of faculty and other academic professionals, and the advancement of higher education as a public good. I support this bill and urge the members of the House to support it as well. Faculty voices, who carry institutions of higher education, need to be heard.

My name is Greg Mourad, and I am Vice President of the National Right to Work Committee. I am here to speak against House Bill 1263, which would force all Virginia public employees under union monopoly control. It’s just plain wrong for workers to be forced under union monopoly control as a condition of working in public service. Under exclusive representation, better termed monopoly bargaining, individual workers lose the ability to choose their own representation -- this is a right even a convicted criminal retains. But in addition to imposing union monopoly representation on public employees, this bill will also undercut the people’s elected representatives’ responsibility to set a budget, while closing out the public from the decision-making process. Indeed, that’s exactly what the U.S. District Court said in upholding North Carolina’s law banning public sector bargaining. The court ruled: “[T]o the extent that public employees gain power through recognition and collective bargaining, other interest groups with a right to a voice in the running of the government may be left out of vital political decisions.” And monopoly bargaining gives public employee union bosses a second bite at the apple that’s completely unique among all stakeholders. They not only can lobby and electioneer like anyone else, but under this bill union bosses can by law bind the government in contracts. Meanwhile, regardless of any legal prohibition, passing this bill opens the door to public employee strikes -- since 2023 we’ve seen illegal walkouts everywhere from Clark County, Nevada to Fresno, California to four school districts in Massachusetts. And the fact is, this legislation will be a disaster for Virginia taxpayers. Years ago, the Heritage Foundation found that public sector monopoly bargaining costs the average family of four as much as $3,000 in taxes per year in states that have passed it for all government workers. Meanwhile here in Virginia, Loudoun County schools had to hire thirteen new staff and increase spending by $3.3 million just to implement monopoly bargaining. This bill would repeat those costs in county after county, town after town, in places that have rejected bargaining due to the cost. Meanwhile, the people’s elected representatives will lose flexibility to make needed changes the next time there’s a recession. These are all big reasons why even many strong proponents of monopoly bargaining in the private sector have opposed public sector bargaining. For example, Franklin Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees, “all Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” It’s wrong for workers, wrong for taxpayers, and harmful to our representative form of government. I urge you to kill this bill or anything like it.

Dear Members of House Commerce and Labor, Subcommittee #2 As the lobbyist for Prince William County Schools, I am submitting the following comments in opposition to HB 1263, at least as it relates to public schools of the Commonwealth. More specifically, PWCS opposes the following provisions: [at line 673] § 40.1-57.12. Determination of appropriate bargaining unit At Section D.1., PWCS does not believe that principals and assistant principals should be represented as a bargaining unit. As such, these positions represent a high level of management just below the school board and superintendent and, thus, should not be part of the collective bargaining arrangement. 40.1-57.16. Negotiation and impasse procedures [at line 673] Section A.4. This provision requires the parties to submit to binding arbitration. PWCS submits that this provision, as it relates to public schools, is unconstitutional in that it requires the elected school board to delegate its responsibilities vested in it under Article VIII, Section 7 of the Virginia Constitution. Further, a school board has no power to levy taxes in Virginia and is therefore wholly dependent upon state and local funding over which it has very little control, if any. As a result, it may lack the ability to fund a binding award made by an arbitrator. [at line 680] Section A.5. This provision restricts the arbitrator’s finding to either the final offer of the employer or the employee organization, and nothing in between. Since at line 740, the terms of an agreement remain in effect until superseded by a new agreement, there is no incentive for the employee organization to submit a reasonable final offer. Thank you for your consideration. Jim Council 804.347.0503

Hi my name is Sean Cassar, I live in District 80. I am the labor co-chair for the Richmond chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America and appear before you today to read a letter from our members who are state employees: As state employees, we are excited about the collective bargaining rights proposed for public sector workers and greatly urge your support. This is a right that everyone deserves and that a majority of states provide. We want to thank the sponsors of this legislation, all those who worked to draft it and lobbied and organized for years to get to this moment. In anticipation of its success and in comparing this resolution to other states there are a few confusing sentences and unnecessary restrictions we’ve found. Before we start, we want to state plainly that we will support this bill in whichever form it appears but take this opportunity to voice our concerns. First we are concerned with the language in §40.1-57.12. C which mandates the rigidity of cross department and agency bargaining units and ask that you provide more flexibility in the language for the bargaining units of state employees. With over 100 executive branch agencies and subagencies that the provisions apply to, it will be challenging to exercise the collective bargaining rights provided. Additionally, the Governor is not required to make appointments to the Public Employee Relations Board until October of 2027. This means it will be well over a year after the bill is effective before public workers can exercise collective bargaining rights. The delay is concerning as it also would delay our understanding of how to proceed with organizing on the ground. Lastly, the retention of the strike policy is disappointing. The best way for workers to protect their rights is by withholding our labor. The best way to avoid a strike is to bargain in good faith and not retaliate or infringe on labor rights. Further, with no language outlining investigation processes, this provision can and will be weaponized by management as we’ve seen happen on multiple occasions in Richmond Public Schools. We hope you consider our suggestions as this bill will affect the rights afforded to us, and we have exact language changes we recommend which some of you may have received already and can provide if you are interested. Again, we will support this bill in whichever form it appears but urge tightening up of language and expansion of rights. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am a graduate worker in Engineering asking you to vote YES on HB 1263 to allow public sector workers to collectively bargain. Last year, a friend in another lab had an advisor who had to leave the department because he was not able to secure funding. Through no fault of her own, his student had to graduate on an accelerated timeline and had less than 6 months to complete what takes most students about 1-2 years. She also had to balance this with teaching (which is atypical for a student in their final year but necessary for her to be funded her last semester) and job searching. She was exhausted as a result of having to work around the clock to manage these responsibilities. Unfortunately, graduate workers being overloaded with teaching and research responsibilities during their final year has happened in at least three different departments during my time here. There is no way a graduate student can provide the best possible teaching for undergrads while exhausted and overworked. Collective bargaining for graduate workers would allow us to negotiate a contract that guarantees funding for the duration of the PhD. This would ensure that grad workers do not need to overwork themselves to graduate on an accelerated timeline in circumstances like these, while improving quality of education for students at Virginia's public universities.

The Virginia Association for Home Care and Hospice opposes this bill. Medicaid sets the reimbursement rates for personal care services. According to the Guide House report these services should be increased 42% to allow proper compensation for all staff working in this setting. Collective bargaining will not solve the underpayment issues or staff salaries.

Please Oppose this bill those of us from states like NY are familiar with the power and pitfalls of public sector collective bargaining. In the 1970s in New York State alone, there were, on average, 20 teacher strikes a year, and who doesn't remember the trash piled high on city streets as sanitation workers walked out. Think that can't happen here because the law makes strikes illegal? Think again, didn't the teacher’s union keep schools closed for nearly 2 years refusing to go back to in-person learning and in our city workers not pick up our trash in protest for "Hazardous duty pay?” Same in Wisconsin when Governor Walker signed legislation into law to limit collective bargaining to just wages, thousands of teachers called in sick and showed up at the captial building in protest, Collective bargaining is not about workers rights, it's about control. Collective bargaining with public-employee unions would mean taking some of the decision-making authority over government functions away from the people's elected representatives and transferring them to union officials, with whom the public has vested no such authority During a downturn in the economy New York was bailed out by the federal government after Governor Cuomo was prevented from getting concessions from the union by an amendment inserted into law for union contracts. New York was bailed out by the federal government after Governor Cuomo was prevented from getting concessions by an amendment inserted into law for union contracts. In Miami the police union sued after the city made changes to their union contract saying the city failed to raise taxes, lay off non-union workers and put in speed cameras. Vallejo, California filed bankruptcy after trying for 3 years to negotiate with unions. Allowing unions the ability to collectively bargain for employees increases the cost of government. Every dollar spent on administering union contracts is a dollar NOT spent on educating a child or providing city services. Please vote NO!