(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
Michigan's Proposal 12-2 seeks to amend the US Constitution to protect the right of employees, both public and private, to collectively bargain. The actual language of the proposed constitutional amendment can be found here (link courtesy of the Citizens Research Council of Michigan). While the proposal itself seems relatively simple, the CRC makes a compelling case that the effects of Proposal 12-2 may be more far-reaching than its language suggests. While the right to collectively bargain is important, it's not at all clear that it should be unlimited.
Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to Proposal 12-2 has been based on misconceptions: for instance, the idea that it is about special rights for public employees over private employees.
The right to unionize is important, and should be protected in the Constitution. But, pace my progressive friends, it probably shouldn't be as protected as this amendment would provide for. So, I'm going to tentatively recommend voting "NO" on Proposal 12-2, unless people can change my mind.
UPDATE: I address Proposal 12-2 in the context of graduate student unionization here.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with this Proposal is the wording invalidate existing or future state or local laws. This means a handful of people in our state or local communities could hold the majority of it's citizens hostage to the demands of Unions no matter what most of our citizens want. This is the minority ruling the majority, that is not what our country is about. Vote no on Prop 2. I am a public employee and this not in the best interest of our communities.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what exactly what your objection is. For reference, here are the two provisions I think you're referencing:
Delete------
(3) No existing or future law of the state or its political subdivisions shall abridge, impair or limit the foregoing rights, provided that the state may prohibit or restrict strikes by employees of the state and its political subdivisions. The legislature's exercise of its power to enact laws relative to the hours and conditions of employment shall not abridge, impair or limit the right to collectively bargain for wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment that exceed minimum levels established by the legislature.
(4) No existing or future law of the state or its political subdivisions shall impair, restrict or limit the negotiation and enforcement of any collectively bargained agreement with a public or private employer respecting financial support by employees of their collective bargaining representative according to the terms of that agreement.
------
These both sound like relatively standard constitutional rules to me: legislation cannot override constitutional rights. If there's a constitutional right to collective bargaining, it shouldn't be able to be limited or abridged by other laws short of a constitutional amendment.
This doesn't seem to in any way establish "the minority ruling the majority" or hold anyone "hostage to the demands of Unions" any more than standard collective bargaining laws do.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Could you clarify?
Could you link me to the actual document? I keep searching for it but can't find anything but the summarization.
ReplyDeleteThe link is in the entry above (where it says "The actual language of the proposed constitutional amendment can be found here")
Delete