|
that three times I opposed the insertion in
the constitution of the unembellished right
of collective bargaining and the right to
organize. I believe that it has no place in
the constitution, and that it should have
been provided for in the statutes, because
it is a right that has to be accompanied by
a great deal of regulation, both by a legis-
lative body and by an administrative body.
However, I feel that if it were to be
stricken now and stricken by a margin of
a few votes, it would only be a pyrrhic vic-
tory for those who wanted to extricate it
from the constitution.
I think that actually many of those who
supported the insertion of provision 1.17
agree that it must be made clear that the
General Assembly of Maryland has plenary
power to regulate this right in great detail,
and that is the purpose of my amendment,
to make clear that the General Assembly
of Maryland will have in this area roughly
an analogous power to what the Congress
has to deal with collective bargaining in
the federal sphere.
For example, I think it perfectly clear
that the General Assembly, by statute or
by aministrative regulation under some
board created by statute, could prohibit the
right to strike on the part of the public
employees, could require as a condition that
a union be recognized as a collective bar-
gaining agent for public employees, that
the union agree to a no-strike clause in
all its contracts, and could provide for or-
ders disestablishing a union for abuse of
the collective bargaining activities.
So far as the right to strike is concerned,
even if my amendment were not offered, I
think it is perfectly clear, and it certainly
is the intention of my amendment to make
clear, that the General Assembly of Mary-
land maintain the power to prohibit strikes
in the areas in which public employees are
involved, and indeed beyond that, in areas
where private employees are involved, but
where the particular industry in which
they are employed affects the public in-
terest.
In other words, the right to strike or not
to strike, or the right of the General As-
sembly to outlaw strikes in certain areas
is not affected by 1.17, and it is the purpose
of my amendment to make that clear.
Further, it is the intention of my amend-
ment to make clear that the General As-
sembly could classify the area of collective
bargaining activity and perhaps impose a
much narrower sphere of what is a fit sub-
ject for collective bargaining in the field of
|
public employees than it could be in the field
of private employees; but the point is that
this right must be regulated. This right
must be embellished by statute and admin-
istrative regulations.
The General Assembly retains the plen-
ary power to do that. If there were any
doubt about it, my amendment would elim-
inate it. That is the purpose of my amend-
ment, and I hope 'that if my amendment is
adopted section 1.17 would be more palat-
able to some of those with whom I joined
on three occasions in accepting the idea
of the right of collective bargaining.
We have come a long way. It is a long
time since 1935, and I think generally the
right to collective bargaining on the part
of public employees is gaining public ac-
ceptance.
I would have preferred it be in the stat-
ute at the pleasure and in the good time
the General Assembly wanted to grant it,
but it looks as if it may be in the constitu-
tion. If it is to remain in the constitution,
let it be perfectly clear that it is a right
subject to the very strict and severe regula-
tion on the part of the General Assembly,
but not, of course, going so far as to deny
the right or take away the right; although
I suppose in an appropriate case if a union,
especially a union representing public em-
ployees, abused the right there could be an
order of disestablishment setting aside a
collective bargaining election.
All of these matters should repose with
the General Assembly and subsequently, I
suppose, repose with the administrative
agency, like a little labor board created by
the General Assembly. That is the only way
the right can be effective, and that is the
only way abuse of the right can be effec-
tively protected, too.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
delegate desire to speak in opposition to
Amendment No. 13?
Delegate Cardin.
DELEGATE CARDIN: Mr. President, I
have a parliamentary inquiry.
Irrespective of the outcome of Amend-
ment No. 13, will we still have Amendment
No. 5 before us?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you will.
DELEGATE CARDIN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. President, I
did not want to speak in opposition, but I
|
