|
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted? Does any
delegate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 16 votes in the affirmative
and 108 in the negative, the motion is lost.
The amendment is rejected.
Delegate James, is your amendment
printed?
Pages will distribute Amendment AO.
This will be Amendment No. 23.
The Clerk will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 23
to Committee Recommendation R&P-1, by
Delegates James, and J. Clark. On page 4,
section ——— , Right to Organize and Bar-
gain Collectively, as amended by Amend-
ment No. 21 in line 10 of the amendment
after the word "choosing" add the follow-
ing words: ", subject to such regulations
as the General Assembly may prescribe by
law."
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment hav-
ing been proposed by Delegate James and
seconded by Delegate James Clark, the
Chair recognizes Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Mr. Chairman
and fellow delegates, first let me say that
this amendment is offered in full acceptance
of the decision of the majority here that
the right of collective bargaining be recog-
nized as a constitutional right and that
this amendment is not offered in any sense
to diminish or to erode the constitutional
right of collective bargaining.
Nevertheless, there are some problems in
connection with the bald statement of the
language adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The language is "the employees shall
have the right to organize and bargain
collectively through representatives of their
own choosing."
Now, from the standpoint of the State
of Maryland, especially, and I am directing
my attention to that particularly, what does
this mean? Does this mean that any group
of state employees can insist upon bargain-
ing, no matter how small that unit?
Suppose the welfare department workers
decided to create a union to bargain with
the State. Suppose the employees of the
State of Maryland do this. Suppose the
institutional workers, the custodial work-
|
ers at the mental and penal institutions
decide to create a union.
Should not the State have the right to
decide how far this recognition should go,
whether it should be a recognition of a
union of the industrial type, shall we say,
which will include all the state employees
or should not the State have a right to
say?
Now, this would not be fair, we should
to some extent recognize the craft idea
and that those people who are in special-
ized areas such as those in the custodial
institutions should have the right to a
separate union.
There are all sorts of things here that
should be devolved by an appropriate
statute and this would give the State the
procedural power to say that this right
may be exercised in an orderly manner.
In a private sector I can seee that the
State should also have the same power
that is exercised by the federal government
in adjusting labor relations in full recog-
nition of the power of collective bargain-
ing. We submit this is a serious amend-
ment, not with the intention of eroding the
original language but simply with the in-
tention of recognizing that the legislature
can lay down rules and regulations for a
reasonable exercise of the right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions of the sponsor of the amendment?
Delegate Beatrice Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Delegate
James, do you yield to a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Beatrice
Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: The explana-
tion that Senator James gives is partially
acceptable, but I am very worried whether
the explanation of intent is different from
what this resolution proposes and I wonder
if he would accept a modification or a
change in his wording, something to the
effect that the right to collective bargain-
ing and organization is recognized, and
that the General Assembly may pass such
regulations as it sees fit?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: I hope that the
language did this. Now, if better language
can be adopted, we would be willing to
accept it.
|
