that act, and is contrary to Act Ill’s purposes as repeatedly observed by this Court’s previous case law. Further, I respectfully believe that in this case, the majority’s casual borrowings from PERA and case law interpreting that act are made without any analysis concerning the specific texts of each of the two acts, the similarities of and differences between the classes of individuals covered by these acts, or the legislative intent behind the establishment of each of these acts. Additionally, the majority complete ly fails to take into account how the “linchpin” of Act 111—its “no appeal” mandate — would fare under the majority’s analysis of and approach to Act 111. See Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers’ Ass’n (Betancourt), 540 Pa. 66, 656 A.2d 83, 89 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Although I disagree with the majority’s
recognizing that because the services of police and fire personnel  are so vital to an ordered society and the interests of labor and management as well as those of the general public are served by swift nonappealable resolution of labor disputes concerning these critical public employees act ills explicit restraint on judicial activism is the linchpin of the act recognizing the states interests in regulating the speech of its employees and stating that the problem is arriving at a balance between the interests of the employee as a citizen in commenting on matters of public concern and the interest of the state as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees  quoting pickering 391 us at 568 88 sct 1731 holding that the scope of a government employees first amendment rights depends on the balance between the interests of the employee as a citizen in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the state as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding that application of fair labor standards act flsa to transportation employees employed by local government does not contravene the commerce clause because labor conditions of those employees affect interstate commerce