|
as they can, or a strike in time of a great
snow storm or other disaster by employees
of the State Roads Commission.
Now, I have been told, Mr. President,
by my good friends in the labor movement,
that this will never happen, and I say to
them, if it will not happen, then this
amendment to the amendment will not hurt
them in any way.
I believe people have got a right to or-
ganize collectively but I do not believe they
have got a right to organize against the
sovereign State of Maryland.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to ask questions of the sponsor of
the amendment?
Delegate Dukes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE MALKUS: I will be very
happy to, Mr. President.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: Delegate Malkus,
do I understand if this language were
adopted as an amendment that although it
would not authorize employees to strike,
neither would it prohibit them from
striking?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Delegate Dukes,
your question is well taken.
The amendment was written in haste.
My intention was that it would prohibit
them from striking. That is the intention
of the amendment. I would not object to
clarification of the amendment to state
that they would be prohibited from voting against, or from striking against the
State, which was the intention of the
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dukes, do
you have a further question?
DELEGATE DUKES: Well, you have
answered my question, but you sort of left
me in a quandary.
I suppose the only other thing I would
say, would it not be wise to state the
issue clearly, to put before us your intention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fox, do
you have a question?
DELEGATE FOX: A point of parlia-
mentary inquiry. In view of Delegate
Malkus' interpretation of the meaning of
|
his amendment, I question whether it is in
order.
The language just passed says, "subject
to such regulations as the General Assem-
bly may prescribe by law, such procedural
regulations as the General Assembly may
prescribe by law", and I question, is this
the proper amendment to that language?
THE CHAIRMAN: It is an addition to
the section. I do not know that it is an
amendment to that particular language. I
am not sure I follow your point.
Why would it not be germane to the
section?
DELEGATE FOX: Well, his statement
was that he meant this to mean that they
could not strike against the State of
Maryland.
THE CHAIRMAN: It seems to the
Chair that it would not necessarily be in-
consistent with the provision that the Gen-
eral Assembly by law would prescribe pro-
cedural regulations to provide absolute
prohibition in one area. I do not think the
amendment is inconsistent with the pre-
vious amendment.
Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: May I pur-
sue the parliamentary inquiry raised by
Delegate Fox?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: It seems to
me if Delegate Malkus' intention is to pro-
hibit a strike, that concept is not consistent
with a right to organize and bargain col-
lectively, which is an affirmative right
granted already by Amendment No. 21.
This is an entirely different concept, is it
not, Mr. Chairman?
THE CHAIRMAN: The basis of the
Chair's ruling is that it does not to the
Chair seem inconsistent to state in one
section a right to organize and to state in
another section, another sentence or clause,
that the procedural aspects of that right,
or the exercise of that right may be regu-
lated by the General Assembly and to state
in another sentence that notwithstanding
those provisions, there is a limitation of
some sort.
It may be that the way which the three
are tied together is grammatically awk-
ward. That would be a question for the
Committee on Style. But I do not conceive
that it would be impossible to grant a right
to organize and then have in effect a pro-
viso that it should not extend to a certain
|
