You
came back! That means that either you're new or your head didn't explode
yesterday for which I am very happy because I didn't want to be responsible for
that... If you missed yesterday's post I talked about Ballot Proposal
12-1 which deals with the Emergency Financial Manager law, you can find that
post here. Today we're going to talk about Proposal
12-2 so without further ado...
PROPOSAL 12-2
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE
STATE CONSTITUTION
REGARDING COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING
This proposal would:
- Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.
- Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees' financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.
- Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.
- Define "employer" as a person or entity employing one or more employees.
Should this proposal be approved?
My
first and foremost problem with this proposal is that it would amend the State
Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution is to explain what the
state government can and cannot do, what rights and freedoms individuals have,
and it delineates the separation of power within the three branches of
government. I am against amending the constitution for a special interest that isn't directly
related to protecting a right of individuals in general. An idea like
this would more appropriately be pushed through the legislature as a
bill. I understand that a bill like that would not likely pass the House
or Senate with the current majority but that's why we have elections folks! Moving
on...
This amendment protects the rights of a specific group of people
rather than individuals as a whole which in and of itself tends towards the
discriminatory. Furthermore if a special interest can get their interest
protected in the Constitution that could set a dangerous precedent where
anytime someone wants something protected they bypass the legislature and have
it put directly into the constitution where it can't be easily changed. That
leads me to the next problem. Amending theconstitution cannot be easily
undone. Say that in 10 or 20 years the climate of the state changes such
that collective bargaining is no longer a feasible solution to employment
problems, it would take a vote of the people to create an amendment that
overrides this amendment.
Throughout the Bible and history we learn of the Kingdom of the
Medes and Persians and The Law of Medes and Persians. This law was an
unalterable law set up by King Darius who wanted the legacy of the Medes and
Persians to last forever. If the King declared a law to be a Law of the
Medes and Persians it could not be revoked except by a new law issued by the
King to override the previous law. However a 2nd law was rarely created
because it would have been an unspoken statement that the King had erred.
Creating a lasting legacy is a noble pursuit but often the unalterable laws
were created in haste or drunken stupor and were not carefully thought out, the
result being terrible mistakes that were never righted. Unfortunately for
the Medes and Persians their legacy did not live forever.
If
we choose to put this amendment into the constitution we are essentially
insuring that it will not be changed, even if it is later realized that this
amendment was added in error.
The
people who initiated this proposal began their work in response to talk of a
Right to Work bill in the Michigan Legislature. Right to Work is an
initiative that would allow workers who work in a unionized organization to opt
out of the union. They would not pay dues and would not have the protection
of collective bargaining and the union as a whole. No such bill has
passed the legislature and made it to the desk of the governor (who has said he
would not sign it anyway). However the talk is there as recent studies by
the Economic Policy Institute have shown that states with Right to Work laws
have a lower cost of living as well as a lower unemployment rate (EPI Briefing Paper 299). This study also shows
that states with Right to Work have wages that are 3.2% lower than non Right to
Work states. However it's sort of a wash because the unemployment rate
and cost of living are lower.
If
voted into the constitution this amendment would negate all past and future
laws, the number of which cannot completely known at this time. So any
laws regulating wages, hours and work conditions could go out the window if the
union's collective bargaining unit decided they conflicted with what they
want. That's why the number of laws it would affect is unknown, because
it would be determined by the collective bargaining units as they go.
Furthermore collective bargaining and union membership could be extended to all
employees whether or not their employer wants their workers to unionize.
This dramatically affects the rights of employers and could do significant
damage to the employer/employee relationship. Basically collective
bargaining units would have free reign to enact whatever laws they want. This
gives incredible and unprecedented power to an entity that is not listed as a
branch of government in the constitution and has no legal checks or balances.
Lastly,
collective bargaining is already protected under a number of laws. A
search of "collective bargaining" on the Michigan Legislative Website reveals a plethora
of them so it's not like collective bargaining has no protection.
My
opinion on 12-2: NO
No comments:
Post a Comment