|
 State lawmakers this spring
decided to ask voters to pass Amendment 1, a proposal to change the Illinois
Constitution and increase government union powers. Voters will determine its
fate on Nov. 8, 2022.
It is being dubbed a “workers’ rights amendment,” banning right-to-work – but
there’s a lot more to Amendment 1 than that simplistic description lets on.
In fact, there are four parts of the amendment:
(1) Employees shall have the fundamental right to organize and to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing (2) for the purpose
of negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions, and to protect their
economic welfare and safety at work. (3) No law shall be passed that interferes
with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain
collectively over their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment and work place safety, (4) including any law or ordinance that
prohibits the execution or application of agreements between employers and labor
organizations that represent employees requiring membership in an organization
as a condition of employment. (Numbering added).
The right-to-work portion doesn’t come until the very end.
Examined one-by-one, these elements show the amendment is much broader than
proponents claim. It would give the state’s government union leaders more power
than even state lawmakers could possess.
Here is what’s inside when you take apart Amendment 1:
(1) Employees shall have the fundamental right to organize and to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing…
What it says:
What it means:
-
This language is incredibly broad, and there is no wording
in the amendment to limit its application. On its face, it doesn’t matter if
the “employee” works for a government unit, for a private company or even
for an individual person. It broadly applies to all “employees.” Its
coverage of private-sector employees is in conflict with the National Labor
Relations Act.
-
Taken to its logical end, there is no limit on who could
unionize. Arguably, lawmakers and legislative liaisons might be able to
unionize, as they are paid “employees” of the state. Current laws defining
“employee” that exclude various positions may be interpreted as interfering
with those employees’ right to organize and bargain (see part 3) and would
certainly require a judge’s opinion.
-
This right to unionize and bargain is given the same status
as the freedoms of speech and religion.
-
(2) … for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and
working conditions, and to protect their economic welfare and safety at
work.
What it says:
-
Employees are guaranteed the right to bargain over wages,
hours, working conditions, economic welfare and safety at work.
What it means:
-
None of these subjects of bargaining are defined or
limited, allowing unions to bargain over a virtually limitless array of
subjects.
-
Unions could claim just about anything relates to these
broad terms.
For example, the Chicago Teachers Union, which has attempted to bargain over
issues such as defunding the police and rent amendment, could attempt to
claim a constitutional right to bargain over those and other extraneous
subjects. Where in the past Chicago Public Schools could have said it does
not have to bargain over such subjects, its right to refuse to bargain would
be in question were the amendment to pass. Again, a judge would need to
clarify.
-
What’s more, bargaining over more subjects can take longer
and allows room for more disagreement – and therefore more opportunities for
a union to go on strike and interfere with the day-to-day lives of Illinois’
nearly 13 million.
(3) No law shall be passed that interferes with, negates, or
diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively over
their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and work place
safety…
[to top of second column] |
What it says:
-
No law can be passed that interferes with the
right to organize.
-
No law can be passed that interferes with the
right to bargain.
-
No law can be passed that interferes with
bargaining over the following subjects: wages, hours, other
terms and conditions of employment and workplace safety – i.e.,
virtually anything.
What it means:
-
Lawmakers’ hands will be tied; they will be
unable to pass any legislation that restricts organizing or
bargaining because the provisions would interfere with the
“fundamental right” in the amendment.
-
Lawmakers will not be able to narrow the term
“employee” because it would interfere with any excluded
employees’ right to organize. Current laws that exclude various
types of public employees from collective bargaining, such as
managerial employees and elected officials, may violate the
constitution and would potentially lead to litigation.
-
Lawmakers will not be able to narrow the
subjects over which unions can bargain. For example, lawmakers
will not be able to pass legislation excluding investigation and
disciplinary processes from police contracts, because that would
interfere with police department employees’ right to bargain
over terms and conditions of employment. The same goes for other
types of employees and provisions.
-
Lawmakers will not be able to limit employees’
ability to strike, because it would interfere with the right to
bargain and organize. It is currently a “right” for many public
employees in Illinois, and lawmakers will be prohibited from
changing that, despite the fact that all of our neighboring
states prohibit strikes by all or most public-sector workers.
-
Lawmakers will not be able to amend the current
labor provision that allows collective bargaining agreements of
public-sector unions to override conflicting laws, because that
would interfere with the right to create those contracts through
bargaining. What’s more, other contracts not currently covered
by that provision will now carry the weight of the constitution,
making them also more powerful than state law.
(4) … including any law or ordinance that prohibits
the execution or application of agreements between employers and
labor organizations that represent employees requiring membership in
an organization as a condition of employment.
What it says:
What it means:
-
Right-to-work will be banned in Illinois,
departing from the majority of other states and most of
Illinois’ neighbors.
-
Private sector workers in unionized workplaces
will be perpetually denied the right to decide for themselves
whether to pay dues or fees to a union.
-
While the wording is not limited to
private-sector employees, it will be inapplicable to – and in
fact unconstitutional in regard to – workers in the public
sector because the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v.
AFSCME reestablished the right of public employees to choose not
to pay dues or fees to public-sector unions.
Putting it all together
Dividing the amendment into its parts reveals how broad the
amendment really is.
Taken together, these provisions could grant more power to unions
than to lawmakers in the state of Illinois:
-
Unions could override other laws by writing
conflicting provisions into their contracts. Lawmakers could
never change that.
-
Unions could demand negotiations over those
provisions, because the amendment guarantees virtually limitless
subjects of bargaining. Lawmakers could never change that.
-
Unions could go on strike to force government
units to agree to those provisions. Lawmakers could never change
that.
This amendment would hand over more power to
unaccountable union leaders than elected state lawmakers possess.
Guaranteeing union powers through a constitutional protection no
other special interest group possesses would guarantee voters’
voices would weaken, and Illinois voters already have problems being
heard in Springfield. |
