|
I could read you what their presidents
have said in these letters, which came com-
pletely unsolicited to me. Obviously, the
proponents of this amendment are afraid
of what those letters say.
I rather think that Delegate Bothe is
like a Boy Scout who is helping the old
lady across the street. You can see this
Boy Scout Badge. I got involved in this
thing. I came across the couple. Here he
was dragging the old lady across the
street. I said, "What is the matter"? She
said, "I don't want to go across the street."
I say to you, many of these laboring people
do not want this thing in the constitution.
This does not belong here.
Now, Delegate Bothe explained that
there are four states out of fifty which
mention this matter in their constituions.
Two of them specifically spell out that
there is an entirely different ground rule
between public employees and private em-
ployees. She has stated unequivocally, this
amendment would apply down the line to
all employees.
I say to you ladies and gentlemen, this
should not apply to all employees up and
down the line, and in those two states
where they made no differentiation, Mis-
souri and New York, the courts have held
that the right to bargain collectively does
not apply to public employees.
This is an action by a strong group of
people, who came down here. I know they
have their hand on your shoulder. They
are urging you and looking down from
the balcony wanting to know how you will
vote. I hope you ladies and gentlemen will
not be like that girl in the famous musical
"Oklahoma" who sang "I'm just a girl who
can't say no."
I hope you have the guts to say no. This
is a tough situation, I know. I am not
against labor, but this amendment does
not belong in the constitution. It can be
adequately handled by the legislature. If
you do not do your duty on this amend-
ment, if you let this amendment go into
the Constitution, you will open the door
to put many other things in. This is not a
matter just of helping labor; even laboring
men are fighting amongst themselves.
I urge you to reject it and reject it re-
soundingly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: According to my
calculations, Mr. Chairman, we have used
nine minutes, is that correct?
|
THE CHAIRMAN : You have eight min-
utes left.
DELEGATE BOTHE: I will allot four
minutes to Delegate Gallagher.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, ladies and gentlemen of the Commit-
tee, I do not think I will need four min-
utes, but I think it is significant to note
that were this the 1867 Convention, this
very proposal would be an attempt to put
into the constitution what was then a
crime.
I think that is one of the ironies of the
situation, because this is an example, a
classic example, of an evolving right. I
think it is a right which was won at con-
siderable difficulty and sacrifice, and I
think it is a right which becomes of addi-
tional and more significant importance as
the years go by.
We have moved from an agrarian econ-
omy into an industrialized society. The
great concentration of population continues
to take place in the urban areas.
I submit that the recognition and instal-
lation of this particular right in the con-
stitution will promote the opportunities for
stability within our society and within a
very large segment of our society.
While recognizing that it can be accused
of being class legislation, it covers so signi-
ficant a portion of our society that I believe
it has general public application and there-
fore is not parochial or individualized in the
usual sense of the word.
Now, it seems to me that simply because
the legislature has not acquiesced in at-
tempts to make this right known in
statutory form is no argument against it.
Indeed, it may be an argument for it.
I simply state that here is an opportunity
to put into the constitution a right which
seems to me to be very significant for order-
liness and for genuine opportunities for
communication in our society as we know
it today.
It is, as 1 say, an unusual right in that
it has evolved from a crime to a right, or
at least recognition as a crime, to recogni-
tion as a right. I do not think we ought to
distinguish our vote on this, as Chairman
Kiefer said, between pro-labor and anti-
labor. I agree with him in that respect.
I would not hope anybody would vote
simply with the definition of that attempted
|
