|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: I think so. I think
when you are working for the State, you
are working for all the people and it is
quite a bit different working for the State
than it is working for a private employer.
The important thing is that the em-
ployer in the instance of the State is con-
trolled by the representatives of all the
people and that is quite a bit different from
a private employer who just represents
himself or the stockholders.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any
further questions, Delegate Key?
DELEGATE KEY: I do not wish to
debate the issue.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. Delegate
James, do you have a further comment?
DELEGATE JAMES: Yes, I would like
to direct a further answer to Delegate
Sickles.
After further consideration, Delegate
Sickles, of the concept and the meaning
and the application of the word "proce-
dural", my co-sponsor and I would be
willing to accept the word "procedural"
inserted before the word "regulations" so
if there is no objection —
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any objec-
tion to modification of the amendment by
inserting in line 7 the word "procedural"
before the word regulations?
The Chair hears none. The amendment
will be so modified.
THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Dukes rise?
DELEGATE DUKES: I would like to
direct a question to Delegate James.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does Delegate James
take the floor to yield to a question?
DELEGATE JAMES: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: Now that the
amendment has been modified, I do not
know what it means. What does "proce-
dural" mean?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: I believe you are
a lawyer and you know just about as
much of what "procedural" means as I do.
I would think it would go to the question
of how elections would be determined, how
|
long the validity of the election would
stand, eligibility of employees, fairness of
elections, and, conceivably, the unit with
whom the State would bargain.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: That is all you
intended to cover by your amendment?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions? Is there any further dis-
cussion?
Delegate Ritter.
DELEGATE RITTER: I would like to
ask Senator James about that last state-
ment he made, the element of who the
State shall bargain with.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think you mis-
understood him. He said the unit, not ele-
ment.
DELEGATE RITTER: All right, the
unit that the State shall bargain with.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James, will
you repeat what you said?
DELEGATE JAMES: I think I said the
unit with which the State would bargain,
yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
Delegate Ritter.
DELEGATE RITTER: Would that not
take all the sails out of the first amendment
we put on, 21?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: I do not think so.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a fur-
ther question, Delegate Ritter?
DELEGATE RITTER: Well, I have to
disagree with the Honorable Senator, be-
cause I believe those employees shall have
the right to bargain collectively and have
representatives of their own choosing. I
think they are the ones who would decide
who would have the vote.
I am in favor of the amendment but that
last statement I am a little bit afraid of.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Ritter, the
Chair is completely confused as to your
question. I am not sure that I under-
stand either your question or Delegate
James' answer to it.
|
