|
language that was introduced by Amend-
ment No. 21. When I looked at that I
found a court decision had been obtained
to determine whether or not that language,
this right to bargain collectively, applied
to public employees. The court said it did
not, and the court's decision is pretty well
set forth in my memorandum.
I just want to read to you a very quick
part of it. On page 3 we start with the
proposition that there is nothing improper
in the organization of municipal employees
into labor unions, and there is no constitu-
tional provision necessary to authorize that.
However, collective bargaining by public
employees is an entirely different matter.
This was pointed out by such a friend of
union labor as our late President Franklin
D. Roosevelt in a letter to the Union of
Federal Employees, and it goes on to say
why this cannot be a matter of collective
bargaining. The court not only held this,
but held it firmly on the basis that it was
repugnant to the basis of our federal gov-
ernment.
We cannot relegate to labor unions the
right and functions of government. The
City of Baltimore attempted to, and did ne-
gotiate a contract with a union for chauf-
feurs and sanitary workers. A tax-payer's
suit in 1945 was brought to invalidate that,
and it was invalidated, and the Court of
Appeals commented on this. This is also
set forth in the memorandum. The Court
indicated that one of the functions of gov-
ernment is the setting of wages and work-
ing conditions and that labor unions and
City officials or government officials could
not collectively bargain on these fields.
Now in the State of Missouri statutes
have been provided for this subject, and
they, again, point out in the statutes the
right to organize and the right to present
demands, but also indicate that even if
they work out an agreement it is not a
contract. It cannot be a contract until an
appropriate governmental body actually
approves it in a form provided by law.
New York has a similar constitutional pro-
vision, but specifically excludes public em-
ployees in their statute. The only two
states that do have this in their constitu-
tion are Hawaii and New Jersey.
And, if you will look at this memoran-
dum you will see that they treat this ex-
actly as I have treated it here. In other
words, the language that I have used in
the second sentence is the exact language
as that in the State of New Jersey. I,
therefore, urge you not to try to put in this
constitution a concept or an idea or even a
|
thought that would possibly let the people
think that we are giving the right of col-
lective bargaining to governmental or pub-
lic employees when it does not, in fact,
exist. I hope, therefore, that you will adopt
this amendment.
Now, the first sentence is really just a
statement of what the present section 1.17,
as we have now rewritten it with the Scan-
lan Amendment, says except that it applies
only to private employees which is what it
has to do with anyhow. I, therefore, urge
you to adopt this 'amendment in lieu of sec-
tion 1.17.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Weide-
meyer, do you desire to speak in opposi-
tion?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Just a
question in clarification of the amendment.
The amendment was probably drawn
before —
THE PRESIDENT: Is this a question of
Delegate Kiefer?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Kiefer, do
you yield to a question ?
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: This
amendment was drawn before the Scanlan
amendment went on and as it reads it
would strike out all of lines 39 to 43. For
clarification, I imagine what you mean to
say is to strike out all of section 1.17 as
presently amended.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes, that is cor-
rect, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objec-
tion to modifying the amendment in line 2
so as to strike out the words in lines 39
through 43 inclusive and in lieu of that in-
sert all of section 1.17 as amended by
Amendment No. 13? Any objection? If not,
the amendment will be considered as modi-
fied in that manner.
Delegate Sickles.
DELEGATE SICKLES: Mr. President, I
rise to ask Delegate Kiefer to respond to a
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Kiefer, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Sickles.
DELEGATE SICKLES: Delegate Kiefer,
I find in looking very closely at your sug-
|
