|
As I understood his answer to Delegate
Dukes and Delegate James — will you cor-
rect me if I did not understand it prop-
erly — he ended his comment by saying it
may possibly include the right of the legis-
lature to designate the unit within which
the collective bargaining should operate,
or words to this effect.
Was this substantially what you said?
DELEGATE JAMES: That is substan-
tially what I meant. Certainly you have to
accept this word "procedural" in context
with the basic right set forth of collective
bargaining.
Now, the State certainly could not do
anything to impair this right of collective
bargaining and this amendment is not in
any way intended to do that, but, certainly
the manner and means and the procedures
through which this collective bargaining
process is going to be exercised should be
subjected to some state regulation so that
it would be meaningful and effective and
in the interest of the public and the em-
ployees.
That is my intention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a fur-
ther question, Delegate Ritter?
DELEGATE RITTER: No, I have no
further question.
THE CHAIRMAN: For what furpose
does Delegate Sickles rise?
DELEGATE SICKLES: Am I allowed
to speak against the amendment?
THE CHAIRMAN: You certainly are.
DELEGATE SICKLES: I feel a little
like the time when we were back in the
House of Delegates and the committee re-
ported out a bill unfavorably with amend-
ments. We were not really for it, but if it
passed, we wanted to be sure it was amend-
ed properly.
That is how I feel about this. By putting
the word "procedural" in there, it helps
the language. I think there is a feeling
that what we have done by 21 is a lot
broader than I intended or even the spon-
sors intended that it be, but if that is the
intention of some of those maybe it is a
better amendment than I thought.
But even in its limitations, it seems to
me that it is clearly understood by legisla-
tive history which some people question
that if you were going to go further that
you would have to have legislation to set
|
up appropriate bargaining units as far as
elections are concerned.
If there is concern about legislative his-
tory then there should be concern about
this legislative history. If a court could
read this without having had the benefit
of this colloquy, I would be opposed to this
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody desire
to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Malkus?
DELEGATE MALKUS: Mr. President,
I do not know whether I am speaking in
favor or against the amendment. I am dis-
appointed that the President of the Mary-
land Senate accepted that amendment.
I, too, like Delegate Dukes, do not know
what it does. I supported, and in my heart
I thought I was right, the Amendment No.
21 which gives people the right to organize.
Since then, I do not know whether I did
right or not. And the question that I
raised before this body was, does this give
the people or organizations or unions the
right to strike against the State of Mary-
land. The amendment is being drawn, and
I hope we can talk long enough for the
amendment to be prepared that no one can
strike against the State of Maryland.
Now, I am very strong in my feeling
that people should have the right to or-
ganize. My record here in the legislature
has always been the same, but I am
bitterly opposed to those who struck at the
docks when we were getting ready to go
overseas to fight for our country, and defy
anyone here to say they were right in
doing so.
Now, getting back to home, Mr. Presi-
dent, I would be bitterly opposed to any-
body who would strike at a state hospital.
Before we stop talking, I want it clearly
written in this constitution that you cannot
strike against the State of Maryland and
let some poor inmate die because of some
labor dispute we have going.
Now, my friend, brother Sickles, said
over here that that cannot be. But I now
know that he will support the amendment
when I bring it up in a couple of minutes.
Now, this is a serious thing, what we
are doing here.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one-half
minute, Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Thank you.
|
